The referendum, at first considered an attempt by President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) to attract voter support, failed in the end because less than 50 percent of voters chose to participate in the vote.
Although the Taiwanese people have long dreamed about holding a referendum, the first national referendum failed, before the eyes of the whole world. The reasons for this failure were that some people suspected a link between the referendum, independence and self-determination; that the dispute over the legality of the referendum created public opposition to it and that the referendum questions really weren't very exciting.
Chen's announcement immediately after the legislature passed the Referendum Law (公民投票法) last November that he would hold a defensive referendum together with the presidential election became a constant source of conflict. Apart from the confusion and conflict in the months leading up to the referendum, what other effects has the referendum had on society? Has it really promoted a deepening of democracy?
The best way to answer these questions is to look at the different positive and negative opinions and the further debate incited by these opinions.
There are several different opinions in support of the referendum. First, from the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) perspective, it helps political mobilization. Second, it helps consolidate a collective public awareness. Third, it can be used to demonstrate the power of Taiwan as a whole to the international community and as a means to firmly establish Taiwan's international position and guarantee its national security. Fourth, it helps create space for public participation in the debate on public issues, thereby creating a bottom-up democratic and participatory decisionmaking process as well as a true deepening of democracy.
The doubts concerning the referendum can be roughly divided into several different aspects. First, the short-term motive for the referendum was to attract voter support, thereby diminishing the highest of democratic rights into an appendix to a presidential election. Second, the long-term motive was to pave the way for a referendum on independence, which would attract pressure from China and the international community and create confrontation over national identification and ethnicity domestically. Third, issues concerning the legality of the referendum. Fourth and most crucial, are the doubts arising out of considerations regarding the relationship between political power and society in a sovereign nation, ie, the social democracy could have been controlled by the state to influence referendum performance.
It is not difficult to see how the referendum involves a wide range of aspects, from the most realistic political mobilization, international relations, constitutional and legal issues, the fundamental character of democratic constitutional politics and consolidating social-emotional awareness, to the possibility of implementing social democracy. All these complex issues have appeared amid the conflict over the referendum.
The first setback for Chen in his push for a March 20 referendum was having to face international political pressure. The US and Japan, two countries important to Taiwan's national security, have aired doubts concerning the referendum, thus putting pressure on Taiwan. This is why the two questions finally presented by Chen were so neutral in character.
The referendum succeeded in consolidating a certain level of social-emotional awareness. One good example of this was the 228 Hand-in-Hand Rally, when over 2 million people joined hands to say "No" to China and "Yes" to Taiwan. But then the 313 rally also gathered almost 2 million people to say "No" to Chen, which is evidence that the use of national security and international status to consolidate the emotions of the people is not acceptable to everyone.
The issue that has engendered the most lively discussion has been the question of the legality of the referendum. Almost every aspect of the law has been discussed, but the debate has been restricted because neither law nor formal logic touches upon the more fundamental issues. Further exploration appears impossible since both the government and the opposition are unwilling to ask for a constitutional interpretation of the issue. However, this situation is bringing two positive results:
First, the public debate allows the public to gain a deeper understanding of the law. Second, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators have proposed an amendment to the Referendum Law aimed at restricting the president's right to initiate a referendum. Whether or not this is reasonable is a problematic issue, which at the very least will lead to further discussion.
The theory that the referendum deepens democracy is the referendum proponents' most forceful argument. Has the referendum process had this effect? An attempt at finding the answer in the televised debates between various well-known orators will end in disappointment. However, the public debate in the media regarding the legality of the referendum was one of the positive effects the issue has had. In addition, the first referendum question about strengthening national defense has indeed led to reflection on the arms race terror balance, as well as the question of whether anti-missile equipment is effective.
The dispute has also led to deeper reflection on whether the referendum will bring about a bottom-up process for public participation in decisionmaking, or, as sociologist Wu Jieh-min (
On the other hand, Chien Yung-xiang (
The failure of the referendum is evidence that an attempt to win public recognition using a top-down referendum model requires more cautious deliberation. But are bottom-up referendums a possibility in Taiwan? At least, public debate has entered a stage of deeper deliberation and debate. What now remains is a practical test.
Ku Er-teh is a freelance writer.
Translated by Perry Svensson
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS