|
|
Updated Monday, October 26, 2009 9:21 am TWN, The China Post news staff KMT making bold reformsThe CSC has traditionally met once a week to set important policies, which are then carried out by members at all levels of government. At present, the CSC has a total of 39 members, including five appointed directly by the chairman, two chosen by young members and the remainder, along with 14 alternates, elected among Central Committee members. While the KMT long ago parted ways with its Soviet advisers and fought a civil war against the Chinese communists, it has retained the Leninist system of “democratic centralism” in its party structure. Ironically, the opposition Democratic Progressive Party copied the KMT's structure after it was founded in 1986. When Taiwan was still under one-party authoritarian rule, the CSC was a tremendously powerful body whose members formed a political elite. But following democratization and competition among rival parties, the CSC has become far less powerful. Today, the KMT's caucus in the Legislative Yuan and the president, who are directly elected by the people, are far more powerful than the CSC. The KMT's chairman is also now directly elected by members, making the chairman more legitimate and powerful. Indeed, the CSC has largely been relegated to listening to working reports at its weekly meetings and few important decisions get made there. The CSC's main function today is to approve slates of candidates to run in various elections, although these lists are often determined through primaries and opinion polls instead of backroom negotiations. The KMT is merely a private organization and internal elections are not subject to stringent laws governing vote-buying for public office. However, the KMT would be wise to continue reforming its internal structure to move away from “democratic centralism.” As a democratic party existing in a system of competing parties, the KMT long ago ceased being the source of political power. That is why the KMT should continue moving away from “democratic centralism” so that it can transform itself into a functional election machine. |
| |||||||||||||||