Caesar Must Die

The Kuomintang (KMT) Central Standing Committee recently passed a draft amendment to the Party Charter, making the President the ex officio chairperson of the party. If approved by the 19th National Congress, the KMT will henceforth explicitly enshrine the party-state system of party leadership over the state (although the KMT currently practices party leadership over the state in reality, it had at least not explicitly admitted to it). From now on, whenever the KMT is in power, it will thoroughly destroy the principles of democracy and the separation of powers, rendering itself an unconstitutional political party under Article 19, Paragraph 1 of the Act Governing the Adjudication of Constitutional Cases: "Where the purpose or activities of a political party endanger the existence of the Republic of China or the constitutional order of liberal democracy, the competent authority may petition the Constitutional Court of the Judicial Yuan for the dissolution of the party."

The President Exerts Unchecked Control Over All Affairs

Some might argue: whether the party chairperson is concurrently held by the President is merely an internal family affair of a political party—is it really that serious? Anyone who looks at the vast power currently actually enjoyed by the President, and then looks at how President Ma donned the mask of party chairperson this time and simply invoked party discipline to threaten the legislative speaker, would hardly consider this to be merely an internal party affair.

Ever since the President became directly elected, the office has ceased to be that of a figurehead. Aside from directly participating in major state affairs such as national defense, foreign affairs, and cross-strait relations through the National Security Council and its subordinate National Security Bureau, and firmly gripping executive power by nominating the Premier—who in turn submits ministers for the President's appointment—the President is truly the chief executive. According to the court's opinion in the judgment of the Chen Shui-bian case, from major national policy guidelines down to trivial railway ticket bookings, all fall within the scope of the President's substantial influence, extending far and wide and encompassing everything.

To sum up historical experience, power leads to corruption, and absolute power leads to absolute corruption. Concentrating power to a high degree in a single position is extremely dangerous under any temporal and spatial environment. Therefore, the accountability and checks and balances required by the principles of democracy and the separation of powers are exceptionally important in our country.

However, under the current Constitution, not only is whether to go to the parliament to deliver a state of the nation report entirely at the President's pleasure; constrained by high voting thresholds, the Legislative Yuan's power of impeachment against the President is practically difficult to exercise; and although the power of no-confidence exists, the parliament must pay the price of being dissolved by the President, which amounts to political suicide. Therefore, the parliament actually has limited ability to check and balance the President, and can only barely contend by deliberating bills and budgets. Once the President concurrently serves as the chairperson of the ruling party, they can manipulate ruling party legislators through means such as party discipline, the power of nomination, and even party assets backing, allowing the President's will to override public opinion.

The People's Only Remaining Check Is the Ballot

If the ruling party happens to be the parliamentary majority, the President can hollow out the parliament, truly acting as an emperor with a fixed term. The real arena of power operation is not the government regulated by the Constitution, but retreats into the ruling party. If this is not a party-state system, what is? The party-state system is actually the democratic centralism of communist countries; the so-called centralism therein is complete concentration of power, and thus it inevitably opposes the principles of democracy and the separation of powers, yet these two principles are precisely the core of constitutionalism.

Is not the purpose of existence of a political party that openly declares in its party charter to adopt a party-state system whenever it holds power one to endanger the constitutional order of liberal democracy?

In 44 BC, Caesar was assassinated by senators including Brutus, whom he regarded as his own son. At the time, leveraging the might of his victory in the civil war, Caesar compelled the Senate to grant him the status of dictator in perpetuity, concentrating all political authority of the republic into a single person, with his next step being to claim kingship. These senators were already out of options institutionally; if they wished to preserve the republic, they had no choice but to face the dilemma: "Would we rather have Caesar live in this world and all of us die as slaves, or let Caesar die and all of us live as free men?" (From Brutus's speech after the assassination of Caesar). This is the reason why Caesar must die, and also the historical anecdote that all future generations who cherish the system of freedom and democracy must keep firmly in mind.

If the President is the ex officio party chairperson, becoming an unchecked emperor with a fixed term, what other choice do the people have besides using their ballots to make "Caesar" die?

※ This article was abridged and published in the forum section of the Apple Daily on November 9, 2013. This is the complete and unabridged text.