The Republic of Korea and the Republic of China on Taiwan have taken similar courses of political and economic development since the division of their countries after World War II. Civil wars in early years of the Cold War hardened the division. After democracy movements ended authoritarian rule in both nations, conservative and progressive governments took power by turns.

These historical similarities prompt analysts to make comparisons between what takes place in the domestic politics of the two countries, as well as in the broader “cross-Strait” and “inter-Korean” relations. Drawing analogies is a risky business, but the elections in Taiwan offer a lot of food for thought for political strategists here as they prepare for major elections this year.

Incumbent President Ma Ying-jeou of the Nationalist Party was reelected in Saturday’s vote with a significant margin of 6 percentage points over opposition candidate Tsai Ing-wen of the Democratic Progress Party. The perennial partisan issue of the one-China policy versus independent Taiwan dominated the presidential campaigns with the candidates trying to generate support by pointing to the economic ramifications of their respective policies.

It is a big irony that the one-China policy, which under Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong meant unification through the conquest of the other side, now stands for a peaceful status quo that nurtures economic exchanges to bring benefits to both sides. On the other hand, the Taiwan independence movement of the progressives on the island is condemned by the Beijing government as outright subversion.

The election result revealed that 51 percent of the Taiwan electorate preferred the Nationalist Party’s policy of seeking lower tensions with China and increasing trade, investment and traffic across the 160 kilometer Taiwan Strait. Ma declared that in the next four years, there will be “more harmony, more trust with China … less reason for conflict.”

Beijing was not the only one to be greatly relieved. The White House in Washington quickly issued a statement congratulating Ma’s reelection, which the U.S. sees as likely to ensure “cross-Strait peace, stability and improved relations, in an environment free from intimidation.” At least for the next four years, the United States will have less worry about its obligation of protecting Taiwan against attempts of Beijing to take over the island with the force of arms.

Campaign strategists over here may be finding some lessons from the outcome of the elections in Taiwan, in which the ruling party managed also to secure parliamentary majority, although by a reduced margin. They must be noting that Ma, after steady decline of support, eked out victory thanks to his soft policy toward the mainland and emphasis on welfare for lower-income people with pledge to reduce the gap between the haves and have-nots.

Here in Korea, the incumbent president is constitutionally barred from reelection and the ruling party candidate is free to pick up from existing policies, but inter-Korean relations and welfare are about to become the major campaign issues as Korean voters share similar sensibilities about political, social and security questions with their Taiwanese counterparts. In 2008, both countries saw a return to conservative government after two progressive presidential terms.

In Taiwan, both ruling and opposition parties competed with welfare programs in the climax of their campaigns. A similar trend is being observed here although parties at the moment are more engrossed in realigning and reforming existing organizations. One can expect that the conservative Grand National Party would accelerate its move to the center if its strategists are willing to take a cue from the Taiwanese elections.

The GNP’s emergency committee has yet to give an indication as to whether it would contemplate revising its basically hard-line stance toward North Korea. But its current sensitivity toward the opinions of civic groups could lead the party to react positively to the complaints of “public fatigue” from protracted tension with the North. We will not be surprised if a new platform of the party contains some relaxation measures on relations with Pyongyang. Yet the wise committee members should know they need to consider differences as much as similarities when they would draw lessons from cases abroad.