A Far More Serious Matter than the Four Month “Unattended Window”

A Far More Serious Matter than the Four Month “Unattended Window”
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 4, 2015

Executive Summary: Will the 2016 presidential and legislative elections be combined and held simultaneously? That is the Central Election Commission's preference. KMT Chairman Eric Chu thinks that if a ruling party change takes place, a four-month "constitutional unattended window" will appear, and he considers it cause for concern. Tsai Ing-wen mocked this as a case of "yesterday pro, today con." She said the four-month unattended window is not a new problem, since it appeared during the 2012 election. She is only half right. Should the presidential and legislative elections be combined? If one thinks only about saving money, then one is missing the forest for the trees. When the nation has already been paralyzed, what's the point of saving a few hundred million NT?

Full Text Below: 

Will the 2016 presidential and legislative elections be combined and held simultaneously? That is the Central Election Commission's preference. KMT Chairman Eric Chu thinks that if a ruling party change takes place, a four-month "constitutional unattended window" will appear, and he considers it cause for concern. Tsai Ing-wen mocked this as a case of "yesterday pro, today con." She said the four-month unattended window is not a new problem, since it appeared during the 2012 election. She is only half right.

Should the presidential election be combined with the legislative elections? Two considerations come to mind. One. Cost and time. Combining the two would indeed lower costs. Voters would not have to return to the polls a second time so soon after the first. The CEC argues that this would both save money and labor. Naturally it advocates combining the two elections. Two. Political considerations. A popular presidential candidate is likely to prefer combining the two elections. A coat tails effect would give his party legislators a boost, and help more of his comrades get elected. Given current momentum, the DPP's advocacy of combined elections, and Eric Chu's opposition to them, are based on political calculations by both parties.

The problem is that legislators are elected in January. According to the constitution, they are sworn in on February 1. But the four year presidential term does not begin until May 20. This is what Eric Chu meant by the "four-month unattended window period". In earlier years, standard practice was to hold  presidential and legislative elections separately. Legislative elections were held in mid-January. Presidential elections were held in late March. In 2012 President Ma sought re-election. The CEC combined the two elections for the first time. Ma Ying-jeou was successfully re-elected. Therefore the four month long unattended window problem failed to materialize. Tsai's claim that the unattended window was already a problem is not quite correct. The "constitutional unattended window problem” only appears during a ruling party change. If a president is re-elected for a second term, the problem never materializes.

Lest we forget, in 2012, shortly after Ma Ying-jeou was re-elected, US beef imports controversy, gasoline price and electricity rate hikes, the capital gains tax, and pension reforms all provoked a backlash. By the beginning of his second term, he was already battered and bruised. His popularity had already suffered a serious blow. Public opinion turned against him, so swiftly that people were stunned. This alerted people to the potential drawbacks of the four month unattended window problem. Now go further back. In 2008 a second change in ruling parties took place. Ma Ying-jeou was elected president in late March. On May 20, Chen Shui-bian formally handed over power. The time gap was less than two months. But during this brief gap, the Chen regime purchased a large number of paper shredders. With these he engaged in the wholesale destruction of official documents, including evidence. Over 30,000 documents were destroyed, not counting those we know nothing about. Chen did all this in a mere two months, creating a terrible constitutional discontinuity. Just imagine what a four month long discontinuity might have led to. Aren't the potential consequences worrying?

Moreover, Taiwan's democracy has become "election-oriented" rather than "governance-oriented". Under "election-oriented" politics, the political process is hijacked by the election process. As soon as the ruling and opposition parties finish fighting one election battle, they immediately move to the next one. Politicians care only about whether they win and they can win.  Voters care only about who wins and who loses, not about which policy is adopted and how the nation is governed. In short, national development, rational decision-making, social construction, even the people's welfare, all come second. This sort of impatient, rash atmosphere prevailed just before the nine in one elections. Wen-Je Ko, Eric Chu, and Lai Ching-teh were asked every day whether they would run in the 2016 presidential election. Put simply, politicians are the stars in politics. The people are merely election tools. Unfortunately, voters on Taiwan are far less interested in sound governance than they are the worship of political idols. They are happy to serves as their election tools. The pursuit of novelty is the key to this issue.

Take the system in South Korea. To avoid long-term rulers from becoming corrupt and abusing their power, the South Korean Constitution limits the President to a single five year term. No second term is permitted. This encourages politicians to work as hard as they can to realize their goals as soon as they are elected. During President Roh Moo-hyun's term, he proposed amending the term to four years with one additional term allowed. He failed to gain the support he wanted. This shows that, the South Korean people demanded limits on presidential power.

Among Western democracies, those that prohibit second terms for their presidents are in the minority. But consider the situation on Taiwan. Consider the fierce blue vs. green confrontation. Consider the lack of democratic attitudes. Political parties engage in nothing but malicious obstructionism. Chen Shui-bian was scandal-ridden for over two years before his term of office expired. The Ma government's impossible situation has lasted nearly two years. Such vicious political battles and wheel-spinning, are a hundred times more serious than a "four-month unattended window period".  They are the reasons why Taiwan remains mired in quicksand. Constitutional issues have been raised. Shouldn't we learn from Korea's presidency and institutions? Shouldn't they be a matter of consideration? Wouldn't they at least provide a reference point for the direction of our own institutional change?

Should the presidential and legislative elections be combined? If one thinks only about saving money, then one is missing the forest for the trees. When the nation has already been paralyzed, what's the point of saving a few hundred million NT?

比四個月空窗期更嚴重的事2015-02-04 01:39:32 聯合報 社論

二○一六總統與立委選舉是否合併舉行，中選會目前傾向併選；

國民黨主席朱立倫則認為，萬一政黨輪替，其間將出現四個月的「憲政空窗期」，值得憂慮。為此，蔡英文譏朱立倫「昨是今非」，說四個月的空窗期並不是新問題，二○一二年大選就已存在；這話，其實只說對了一半。

總統大選要不要與立委選舉合併舉行，有兩方面的考慮。一，就財政及時間成本而言，合併舉行的財務成本較低，選民也不必在短時間內兩度奔波；中選會站在追求「省錢」、「省事」的立場，當然支持併選。二，就政治的考慮而言，總統候選者人氣較旺的政黨會更希望合併選舉，因為如此可對黨內立委造成拉抬效應，協助更多同志當選。以目前的氣勢看，民進黨主張併選，朱立倫卻持異議，即是基於各自政黨的現實利益盤算。

問題在，立委在一月中選出後，根據憲法規定，二月一日就要宣誓就任；但每屆四年的總統任期，卻要等到五月廿日才正式展開，這正是朱立倫所謂「四個月空窗期」的由來。以早年慣例，總統與立委選舉都是分開舉行，立委選舉在一月中旬，總統選舉在三月下旬；直到二○一二年馬總統尋求連任，中選會才首度將兩項大選合併舉行。當時馬英九順利連任，因此四個月的時間差並未出現「憲政空窗期」的問題。蔡英文說空窗期是本來就存在的問題，其說法並不正確；因為，「憲政空窗」是在政黨輪替時才會發生，總統連任時則不存在。

若人們不健忘的話，二○一二年馬英九當選連任後不久，即因美牛事件及推動油電雙漲、證所稅、年金等改革，引發社會反彈；俟他正式進入第二屆任期，已經是傷痕累累，元氣大傷。民意快速倒戈的變化，讓人瞠目結舌，也促使各界對四個月「空窗期」的可能弊端有了一番警惕。

時光再往前回溯，二○○八年二次政黨輪替時，馬英九三月下旬當選總統，陳水扁五二○正式交出政權，時間間隔其實不足兩個月。然而，就在這短短的政權交接空檔，扁政府大肆採購碎紙機，將大量的公文銷毀、滅證，數量估計高達三萬件以上，隱匿的還不在其內。這樣的行徑，陳水扁僅以兩個月時間，就製造了可怕的「憲政斷裂」；試想，如果交接的時間裂口長達四個月，其後果難道不值得憂慮？

再說，台灣的民主已經變成一種「選舉導向」的政治，而不是一種「治理導向」的政治。在「選舉導向」的政治下，國家的政治時程，完全被選舉時程牽著走：朝野政黨打完了這場選戰，馬上移師前往下一個選舉戰場；政治人物心心念念之所在，只有自己會不會贏、要怎麼贏；選民心裡想的，也只有誰上誰下的問題，而不是政策怎麼走，國家怎麼治。亦即，國家發展、理性決策、社會建設、乃至人民福祉等，全都被放到其次。也正因為這種急躁、操切的氣氛，剛剛才打完九合一選舉不久，柯文哲、賴清德和朱立倫即天天被外界追問會不會逐鹿二○一六大位。簡單地說，這是以政治人物為中心的政治，而人民只是其中的選舉工具；遺憾的是，台灣選民對於治理過程與品質的追求，似乎遠不如他們崇拜政治明星的興趣，甚至甘當投票工具，而喜新厭舊的心理之強烈更是一大特色。

我們不妨看看韓國的制度，當初為了避免長期執政的貪腐濫權，韓國憲法規定總統任期為五年，不得連任；其作用，是在鼓勵政治人物一旦當上總統，就要全力以赴，爭取表現。在盧武鉉總統任內，曾倡議修憲改為四年一任、並允許連任一次，但未獲得支持；這顯示，韓國人民對「限制總統權力」相當堅持。

在西方民主制度中，禁止總統連任的國家，實屬少數。但以台灣的情況看，在藍綠激烈的對峙下，加上民主素養不足，政黨政治幾乎只剩惡意杯葛；試想，陳水扁在任期屆滿前兩年多已經弊案纏身，馬政府令出不行的情況也已將近兩年。這種政治的惡鬥與空轉，都是比「四個月空窗期」嚴重百倍的事，也是台灣深陷泥淖的主因。正當修憲議題端上檯面，我們要不要參考韓國的總統任期與制度，似乎也應一併提出來討論，至少可供作探討制度變革的方向和線索。

總統和立委選舉要不要合併舉行，若從「省錢」的角度著眼，其實是見秋毫而不見輿薪。君不見，整個國家已鬧到無法動彈，省個幾億元，意義何在？