There is still some time before we know for sure what proposed questions will appear on the referendum ballot on August 28. A number of signs show that the first-ever national referendum to be held without being tied to elections is more like an extended electoral competition between two major parties – ruling DPP and opposition KMT, rather than a public-initiated, issue/policy-oriented and non-partisan campaign that many have hoped for. We will not know how Taiwan voters look at the vote, but the heated debates, active mobilization and tit-for-tat battle between the two parties are almost inevitable.

The recent push for a referendum to protect algae reefs has been politicized. The move is like a canary in a mine, predicting a new battle is unfolded in the middle of this year.

It is essential to talk about the party politics involved in the referendum. In fact, no referendum can work in a political vacuum, and party systems do not just exercise their influence on representative democracy. Since the Referendum Act was passed in 2003, major political parties have been the primary beneficiaries. They have more resources and abilities to propose referendum questions and collect signatures. Major parties (especially the opposition parties) have a greater will to do so --.as Referendum Act gives initiators significant power to set agendas, allowing them to decide the proposals and the vote date. The referendums have not been held in conjunction with general elections since 2019. But the change does not fundamentally transform the incentive structure.

If there is any lesson learned from the 2018 referendum, the ruling party probably has known that it cannot sit idly in the face of the opposition’s aggressive campaigns. Under such political climate, it seems that bipartisan conflicts will only intensify in the near future. The referendum outcome is likely to be described as a vote of confidence on DPP.

Party politics is undoubtedly a two-edged sword in a referendum. Many grassroots groups behind referendum campaigns find it hard to see their cause ignored or benefits of hard work forcibly reaped by a political party. A politicized referendum campaign can turn a once little-known proposal into the island’s first and foremost focus. The rivalry and competition between major political parties in ideologies, development policies and beyond tend to simplify, constrain, or even distort the discussion of an issue in question. Indeed, the image of a party provides easy and useful voting cues for the electorate. Political parties tend to use the referendum as a tool to pursue their own self-interest.

Under party politics, however, the general public has a better chance to hold some accountable for a referendum campaign and its outcome. A stronger link between a referendum and reprehensive politics makes it possible to undermine or even end single-issue politics that many referendum entrepreneurs have sought. This may be considered a good thing for the community as a whole, which often needs to seek balance and compromise over conflicting issues.

There is no need to lament and condemn political parties for stigmatizing referendums. In fact, it is a dangerous myth to believe that direct democracy can work alone without representative politics and party politics to play a role in the game. In truth, if party politics is rejected a role in a referendum, the vote is more likely to be manipulated and dominated by inflammatory populists.

There is no need nor likelihood to expect a referendum to “emerges untainted from muddy water,” implying it cannot work separately from party politics. Instead, we are supposed to shun what is evil and promote what is good: avoid the evil in party politics and promote its good. More specifically, we should encourage major parties to actively participate in the debates and act responsibly to convince citizens to make sensible decisions that can do good to the country in the long term. At the same time, we must work to prevent political spats and false/misleading information from undermining debates over public policies.

We have seen polarization exacerbating in Taiwan. And the review time stipulated in the Referendum Act is too short. Therefore, the ill-intentioned rivalry between political parties is expected in the near future during a referendum campaign. Sooner or later, we will come to understand only good party politics can lead to good referendums and break the spell of vicious political partisanship. Of course, we cannot natively expect the standoff between the pan-green and pan-blue camps to end immediately. A positive and healthy competition between political parties behind a referendum campaign requires both supervision and support from civil society. We should expect ourselves to be sensible citizens who can tell right from wrong rather than cynical pessimists.

(Su, Yen-Tu is an associate research professor at the Institutum Iurisprudentiae, Academia Sinica)

Click here for Chinese version

We invite you to join the conversation by submitting columns to our opinion section: [email protected]

Apple Daily reserves the right to refuse, abridge, alter or edit guest opinion columns for accuracy, length, clarity, and style, and the right to withdraw and withhold columns based on the discretion of our editorial page editors.

The opinions of the writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial board.

---------------------------------

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play