Taiwanese Recall of Ker
I have a big post on Trump and the U.S. Election coming up, but it keeps being delayed because of life. Anyway, a Taiwan-related issue has popped up so I suppose here's my chance to talk about Taiwan to my non-Taiwanese readers for a change.
The Taiwanese legislature has been embroiled in a contentious battle regarding marriage equality/gay marriage for the past month or so. First things first - while I am supportive of some form of marriage equality, I am against the current push to recall DPP floor leader Ker Chien-ming 柯建銘 to punish him for his seeming lack of support.
My first point is fairly simple; once votes are tallied up completely (which includes recounts and challenges if necessary and appropriate), the election is over. Unless there is a *very* good reason to recall an elected official, efforts towards replacing him/her should go towards the next election cycle.
Obviously, the natural follow-up question here is "well, what is your definition of a *very* good reason?"
Mind, I'm not against all recalls. (but yes, I am against recalls in general) There is a good reason for this function to exist in a democracy, but I see it as a last resort that should only be used when an elected official has irreparably violated the implied contract with his/her voters, and there is no other way to alleviate the issue. For example, South Korean President Park Geun-hye has absolutely betrayed this contract. For those out of the loop, she allowed an unelected (and unappointed) cult leader to make major decisions affecting the country, and there have been verifiable reports of systematic, large-scale corruption. Assuming that Korean voters weren't absolute idiots when electing her, this isn't what they agreed to when they cast their votes, and they shouldn't have to wait until the next election in this situation.
In contrast, Ker had not - to the best of my knowledge - run on a platform of marriage equality. For the most part, he pretty much stands for "getting the DPP elected", whatever that may entail. While marriage equality may have indeed been a certain portion of President Tsai's legislative agenda, it most definitely wasn't a primary issue. Both his support or opposition regarding this matter isn't a fundamental reversal of his prior position, in my opinion. Basically, if you got what you paid for, I think a recall doesn't make sense.
Suppose one of Ker's major campaign platforms was a full investigation and disposal of the KMT's ill-gotten party assets. If, once elected, he suddenly became strongly against this action and acted to thwart all legal efforts to implement this, I think you could possibly justify a recall attempt. Note that if what he espouses is more of a compromise rather than a reversal, then things get a bit murky. Given what I've seen from American politics over Obama's term as President, I've come to see the benefits of compromise, and give politicians a bit more leeway in how much I'm willing to give up. Regarding the issue of marriage equality that is the primary rationale for the current recall efforts, my position is that Ker's actions are nowhere near egregious enough to warrant one, and I would be quite worried if he were indeed recalled over this. As mentioned above, this is despite my position as being in form of some form of marriage equality.
The second point is that Ker isn't just a legislator, he is party floor leader. The role inherently means that in addition to personal/constituent legislative desires, his primary role is, or should be, to assist other party legislators. While I'm not nearly as familiar with Taiwanese politics, I imagine that in this regard there are similarities with the American system. In a nutshell, the floor leader needs to take the public criticism on behalf of his members, taking positions that he/she may not personally believe in. Let's say a DPP legislator was elected in a socially conservative district. Personally, he may not have particularly strong feelings about marriage equality one way or the other, but he knows his constituency is fairly traditional/conservative, and doesn't want to risk support over this issue, i.e. he'd rather not go on the record as voting for it. This is also true in the inverse, where he might not want to be recorded voicing opposition - which makes sense, given that the younger demographic in general is more supportive of marriage equality and this would hurt him in the future. The party might feel that there isn't enough overwhelming support one way or the other, and in this case the floor leader's should would essentially be to stall, protecting his members.
Look, most of you reading this blog on Facebook are supporters of marriage equality. Most of your younger friends are too. In fact, given my workplace (like 80% of the guys are gay here) and Facebook sorting algorithms, you'd be surprised to find that opposition or ambivalence at this point is likely higher than you'd expect. For too many (older) people, gay people are an abstract or fabricated concept that they read about on the news, rather than everyday normal boring people they interact with on a daily basis. Changing this simply takes a lot more time and positive exposure, and my gut feeling is that moving too quickly without consensus will result in a backlash much like that seen with the (facepalm) election of Donald Trump.
Say what you will about Ker, he'll do what the party wants. If the DPP overall was pretty much unanimous in support of marriage equality, he'd make it happen. You can't recall a guy because he's faithful to the job requirements, or that you don't like the messenger.
So to make a long story short, the problem isn't Ker. The problem is that most of Taiwanese society (numerically speaking, us younglings are still a minority) isn't convinced that marriage equality should be something normal yet. We see same-sex relationships normalized in American society and among our younger friends, and that's good. But this is a bubble, and if we push too hard too quickly, we're in for a rude electoral awakening. That's not a problem you solve via legislation - though legislation guaranteeing practical equality, such as a separate (I know, I know) add-on helps as a compromise. You change minds one at a time, through daily interactions with your straight friends and family who might be on the fence otherwise, but will slowly move in favor because when they think of gay people getting married, they aren't thinking of the cherry-picked "weirdos" depicted by the media, but they're thinking of you.
The Taiwanese legislature has been embroiled in a contentious battle regarding marriage equality/gay marriage for the past month or so. First things first - while I am supportive of some form of marriage equality, I am against the current push to recall DPP floor leader Ker Chien-ming 柯建銘 to punish him for his seeming lack of support.
My first point is fairly simple; once votes are tallied up completely (which includes recounts and challenges if necessary and appropriate), the election is over. Unless there is a *very* good reason to recall an elected official, efforts towards replacing him/her should go towards the next election cycle.
Obviously, the natural follow-up question here is "well, what is your definition of a *very* good reason?"
Mind, I'm not against all recalls. (but yes, I am against recalls in general) There is a good reason for this function to exist in a democracy, but I see it as a last resort that should only be used when an elected official has irreparably violated the implied contract with his/her voters, and there is no other way to alleviate the issue. For example, South Korean President Park Geun-hye has absolutely betrayed this contract. For those out of the loop, she allowed an unelected (and unappointed) cult leader to make major decisions affecting the country, and there have been verifiable reports of systematic, large-scale corruption. Assuming that Korean voters weren't absolute idiots when electing her, this isn't what they agreed to when they cast their votes, and they shouldn't have to wait until the next election in this situation.
In contrast, Ker had not - to the best of my knowledge - run on a platform of marriage equality. For the most part, he pretty much stands for "getting the DPP elected", whatever that may entail. While marriage equality may have indeed been a certain portion of President Tsai's legislative agenda, it most definitely wasn't a primary issue. Both his support or opposition regarding this matter isn't a fundamental reversal of his prior position, in my opinion. Basically, if you got what you paid for, I think a recall doesn't make sense.
Suppose one of Ker's major campaign platforms was a full investigation and disposal of the KMT's ill-gotten party assets. If, once elected, he suddenly became strongly against this action and acted to thwart all legal efforts to implement this, I think you could possibly justify a recall attempt. Note that if what he espouses is more of a compromise rather than a reversal, then things get a bit murky. Given what I've seen from American politics over Obama's term as President, I've come to see the benefits of compromise, and give politicians a bit more leeway in how much I'm willing to give up. Regarding the issue of marriage equality that is the primary rationale for the current recall efforts, my position is that Ker's actions are nowhere near egregious enough to warrant one, and I would be quite worried if he were indeed recalled over this. As mentioned above, this is despite my position as being in form of some form of marriage equality.
The second point is that Ker isn't just a legislator, he is party floor leader. The role inherently means that in addition to personal/constituent legislative desires, his primary role is, or should be, to assist other party legislators. While I'm not nearly as familiar with Taiwanese politics, I imagine that in this regard there are similarities with the American system. In a nutshell, the floor leader needs to take the public criticism on behalf of his members, taking positions that he/she may not personally believe in. Let's say a DPP legislator was elected in a socially conservative district. Personally, he may not have particularly strong feelings about marriage equality one way or the other, but he knows his constituency is fairly traditional/conservative, and doesn't want to risk support over this issue, i.e. he'd rather not go on the record as voting for it. This is also true in the inverse, where he might not want to be recorded voicing opposition - which makes sense, given that the younger demographic in general is more supportive of marriage equality and this would hurt him in the future. The party might feel that there isn't enough overwhelming support one way or the other, and in this case the floor leader's should would essentially be to stall, protecting his members.
Look, most of you reading this blog on Facebook are supporters of marriage equality. Most of your younger friends are too. In fact, given my workplace (like 80% of the guys are gay here) and Facebook sorting algorithms, you'd be surprised to find that opposition or ambivalence at this point is likely higher than you'd expect. For too many (older) people, gay people are an abstract or fabricated concept that they read about on the news, rather than everyday normal boring people they interact with on a daily basis. Changing this simply takes a lot more time and positive exposure, and my gut feeling is that moving too quickly without consensus will result in a backlash much like that seen with the (facepalm) election of Donald Trump.
Say what you will about Ker, he'll do what the party wants. If the DPP overall was pretty much unanimous in support of marriage equality, he'd make it happen. You can't recall a guy because he's faithful to the job requirements, or that you don't like the messenger.
So to make a long story short, the problem isn't Ker. The problem is that most of Taiwanese society (numerically speaking, us younglings are still a minority) isn't convinced that marriage equality should be something normal yet. We see same-sex relationships normalized in American society and among our younger friends, and that's good. But this is a bubble, and if we push too hard too quickly, we're in for a rude electoral awakening. That's not a problem you solve via legislation - though legislation guaranteeing practical equality, such as a separate (I know, I know) add-on helps as a compromise. You change minds one at a time, through daily interactions with your straight friends and family who might be on the fence otherwise, but will slowly move in favor because when they think of gay people getting married, they aren't thinking of the cherry-picked "weirdos" depicted by the media, but they're thinking of you.
Comments
Post a Comment