No big surprises here. Ma Ying-jeou, the KMT candidate, appears to have won about 58% of the vote. This is pretty much what was expected following January's legislative elections.
We should be careful, however, in reading too much into this outcome. While it is true that the KMT will almost certainly seek accommodations with the PRC government on a number of specific functional issues (airline travel, public health issues, investment, etc.), this will not amount to anything like "unification." Remember, Ma Ying-jeou pledged during the campaign not to hold negotiations with the PRC on the question of unification during his first term. I suspect he will hold to that pledge, especially in light of the current turbulence in Tibet. There will be an improvement in the atmospherics, and that is important, but Ma and the KMT will maintain Taiwan's de facto independence.
The CCP will be happy for now. They can at least be assured that no Chen Shui-bian style "provocations" will emanate from Taibei for the near term. They need all the calm they can get, given their problems with Tibet now. Once the Olympics are past, however, I would bet that Beijing will start pressing Ma for some sort of demonstration that "unification" is in process. And I would further bet that nothing Ma does will be sufficient for Beijing on that score. So, by the end of 2008, or early in 2009, we will likely see accusations that Ma is a "splittist" of the Dalai Lama type. In other words, the honeymoon will likely be rather short.
I hope I'm wrong, but that will require a certain acceptance on the part of Beijing with a status quo that is not really moving, politically, toward "unification." Some in Beijing may be will to be patient in the belief that economic interdependence will gradually evolve into closer political ties, in an EU sort of way, but nationalists will call for faster, direct action, and that, I suspect, will dictate policy after the Olympics.
In a broader sense, this election illustrates the maturity of Taiwanese democracy. This will be the second time in a decade (the first being in 2000) when executive political authority has been peaceably passed from one party to another by means of free and fair contested elections based on universal suffrage. It also reminds us that democracy is very much possible in "Chinese" cultural contexts (even though DPP supporters in Taiwan would contest the usage of the term "Chinese" here). And that brings me back to Mencius, who puts forth a notion of popular consent, or something that comes pretty close to a notion of popular consent.
In chapter 9 (or 5A, depending upon your translation), he tells us that "all beneath Heaven" (i.e. political legitimacy) cannot be passed from one ruler to another: "The Son of Heaven cannot give all beneath Heaven to another." Only "heaven" and "the people" have the authority to bestow legitimacy. He illustrates the point with the passage of the Mandate from Yao to Shun. Yao found Shun, but he did not personally bestow legitimacy:
When he [Yao] put Shun in charge of the sacrifices, the spirits welcomed them. This is how Heaven accepted him. When put Shun in charge of the nation's affairs, they were well ordered and the people were at peace. This is how the people accepted him. So Heaven gave it [all beneath heaven] to him and the people give it to him. This is what I mean when I say the Son of Heaven cannot give all beneath Heaven to another.
Of course, Heaven, insofar as it denotes something like "fate" or "destiny," is a rather vague standard here. How can we know Heaven's tendency? Heaven, in and of itself, does not speak. Mencius has an answer, which he finds in a saying from Emperor Wu:
Heaven sees through the eyes of the people. Heaven hears through the ears of the people.
This suggests that popular opinion is a reliable indicator of Heaven's tendencies. And that is what just happened in Taiwan: people expressed their political opinions through free and fair elections. The ruling party was found wanting, and the opposition party was granted legitimate authority. Peacefully. Very much in keeping with Mencius.
Comments