Even as controversy raged over ideas like abolishing the provincial-level government and reforming the constitutional structure to redefine the roles of top executives (president and premier), the National Development Conference (NDC)-which has as its basic aim to achieve a broad consensus on issues of importance-opened on December 23, 1996. Before the conference there had been compromises among the three main political parties, and in his opening remarks President Lee Teng-hui called on participants to put aside differences in party affiliation and background and explore major issues in a pragmatic and unselfish way. He asked participants to see themselves as "engineers of a new era and helmsmen into the new century," to put aside one-sided views and differences, and to achieve consensus. He promised that the government would move as quickly as possible to turn any agreements into actual policy.

However, as the public expected, once sessions began, the New Party accused the majority Kuomintang (KMT) of having overturned to one degree or another the compromises achieved in the pre-conference meetings. The New Party said they would not exclude fully rejecting the conference, or even withdrawing.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the KMT had been unable to reach agreement on the "improved mixed chief executive system" for the government, and within the DPP differences arose between the party's National Assembly Caucus and the party center. As for the KMT, while it remained essentially united at the top, as the ruling party it has been subject to skepticism among opposition parties and commentators about the motives behind its proposals. There was also some disquiet in the KMT over proposals involving important positions and persons, such as one to scrap the provincial government and one to modify the two-executive system at the central level.

Today in Taiwan, when we are enjoying the first fruits of democracy, it seems that our hope that this National Development Conference can build consensus in the midst of partisan differences will not come to pass. Nevertheless, the conference was a chance for elites from all parties to put their ideas for the country's future out on the table to be publicly discussed. It allowed people to coolly observe each party and judge their positions and political maturity, to take a close look at the concrete suggestions of participating scholars, and therefore to cultivate their own political judgement. One cannot deny that this may be the most important harvest from this conference.

On the basis of the previously agreed agenda, the conference was divided into three major groups discussing, respectively, cross-strait relations, constitutional reform and party politics, and economic development. At the outset, because the proposal to scrap the provincial government would have a direct impact on provincial governor James Soong, who was on the panel discussing cross-strait relations, Soong proposed that participants could join in the discussions of other groups. This proposal was accepted, making the dividing lines between groups rather flexible.

Each of the three major areas includes particularly controversial issues. On the first day of discussions in the cross-strait group, Shen Fu-hsiung of the DPP proposed scrapping the consensus reached by the three parties in pre-conference meetings to define the two sides of the Taiwan Strait as "equal political entities." Lai Kuo-chou of the KMT proposed a new formulation, arguing that it is closer to current political reality to define relations between the two sides of the Strait as "proto-international relations." Lin Yu-fang of the New Party protested, saying that if the DPP and KMT tried to overturn the pre-conference agreements, then the New Party would have its own revisions to make on the question of direct transport and communications links with mainland China.

After intensive discussion, the three parties finally agreed that the compromises achieved before the conference should not be lightly abandoned. Besides retaining the definition of the two sides of the Strait as "equal political entities," the conference simply added proposals by Ju Gau-jeng for a "cross-strait forum" and "inviting representative persons from both sides of the Strait to participate as private individuals to peacefully resolve cross-strait issues through an exchange of opinions without any non-negotiable positions."

The economic development group involved the least controversy. On the first day, Wei Tuan, head of the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting, and Statistics, suggested abolishing the provision in the constitution requiring that at least 15% of the national budget be spent on education or cultural affairs, sparking a debate with Minister of Education Wu Ching. But, except for this, the major issue of debate among the political parties remained-as before-whether or not to build the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. In the end, scholars argued that the constitutional provision requiring minimum spending on education and culture should not be eliminated, while no consensus was reached on the nuclear issue.

The most hotly debated issues, and the ones that drew the most attention in society, were the proposal by the KMT in the constitutional reform group to establish an "mixed improved system" like that of the French Fifth Republic, as well as the proposal to "abolish the provincial government" (or at least "make the provincial government a non-active level of government").

The central level reform issues came up first. Even before the conference began, the KMT's dual executive mixed system idea was being attacked on all sides. Skeptics argued that the proposal was aimed at expanding presidential power and establishing a firm foundation for the vice-president serving concurrently as premier. Some boldly declared that the proposal was simply intended to pave the way for Lee Teng-hui to run for re-election.

With regard to this proposal, the DPP felt that there is still some room for discussion, with the sticking point being whether or not the Legislative Yuan could correspondingly increase its powers to oversee the executive. The New Party, on the other hand, saw the proposal as completely negative in terms of democratic development, saying it smacked of establishing an "imperial system." KMT spokesman Tsai Pi-huang rejected the other parties' views. As for legislative oversight, Tsai argued that since the president is elected by the whole people, he has a more representative mandate than any given legislator. As for the "imperial system" charge, Tsai countered that the KMT's proposal would give the parliament the power to bring down the cabinet, allow the Control Yuan to impeach, and allow the National Assembly to remove from office, so how could the president become an emperor?

After much debate the three parties failed to achieve consensus, agreeing on only a handful of points: (1) The constitution should be adjusted so that the central government meets the principle of power being commensurate with responsibility, to avoid potential constitutional stalemates. (2) The National Assembly and the Legislative Yuan should be allowed to function more effectively. (3) Power of budgetary review should be returned to the Legislative Yuan.

Among constitutional disputes, while the proposal to abolish the Taiwan Provincial Government (TPG) was placed only on the second day of the agenda, it gained even more attention than reforming the central level system. Dissent was found, however, not among the three parties, but in the "provincial" representatives directly involved. Governor James Soong, elected by popular vote, was left in the most embarrassing position. He skipped the debate by pleading that they had to answer interpellations from provincial assemblymen.

In fact, the controversy over the TPG began as early as three months before the conference opened. First, the Taipei County Assembly passed recommendations that the TPG be abolished. Then 104 legislators from all parties in the Legislative Yuan signed on to a recommendation to freeze the TPG. Then the National Assembly caucus of the DPP established the "Alliance to Abolish the Provincial Government."

On December 16, KMT legislator Vincent Siew announced that the KMT had decided that it would propose at the National Development Conference that the TPG be made non-functioning. It also sparked a pre-conference frenzy of debate. But in the conference, KMT Secretary-General Wu Po-hsiung stated that the KMT's attitude toward the question of levels of government was oriented to simplification, efficiency and restructuring, in order to increase the competitiveness of the country, but that there had been no discussion of abolishing or freezing the provincial government.

In the conference, the DPP strongly advocated abolishing the TPG, but they also agreed that it would be possible to first freeze all provincial level elections. The New Party, which advocates a system of "one province with several municipalities," continued to dissent. The only consensus that the three parties could get on paper regarding this issue was to establish a trans-ministerial task force to establish a timetable for simplifying and reducing the functions of the provincial government, to establish assistant county commissioner posts, to make the mayors of sub-county level cities and towns appointive (rather than elective, as at present), and to devolve more power to the counties and cities below the provincial level.

As the whole country celebrated Constitution Day (December 25), and under the current full practice of democracy in Taiwan today, the National Development Conference-working in the context of the last 50 years of political evolution in Taiwan, of stormy relations between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, and of dark clouds in Taiwan's international relations-is striving to achieve maximum agreement so that everyone can survive and thrive together. It is up to the whole people to have the wisdom and patience to support national leaders in putting all their controversies on the table for examination. I am confident that this is only the first step through the great door of democracy. The future of the country belongs to all the people, and votes are our chips for playing in this game.