Twenty young politicians who came of age during the student movements of the 1980s and 90s are going to run in the year-end legislative elections. Will they become a "generational politics" phenomenon in Taiwan? It is an issue worth discussing.
These ex-student activists, plus the other young legislative candidates who don't share a background in student movements, together comprise the generation that grew up during the transition period in which the martial law regime gradually disintegrated. Imagine if the majority of these young politicians were able to get the nominations of their respective parties and coast to victory. For the first time, they would hold more than 15 percent of seats in the Legislative Yuan. Apart from seats in the legislature, the "transition-period generation" has already begun to take positions as political appointees, government aides, and civil servants since the transition of political power.
The "transition-period generation" is distinct from the previous two generations that experienced the process of democratization in Taiwan. Because there have been three important historical stages in Taiwan's process of democratization, the heroes of reform have been classified as belonging to three political generations. The first political generation was the "228 Generation," with representative figures that included Peng Ming-min (
The second political generation is the "Formosa Generation." The DPP's current leadership should be classified in this generation. Of course there are some differences in seniority and experience among them, but of the Kaohsiung Incident (美麗島事件) prisoners, defense lawyers, and even "tangwai" (黨外, non-KMT) activists that comprise this generation, all had already formed their political views by the 1970s and early 1980s. Historically speaking, they can be classified as belonging to the same generation. They were the main force behind democratization in Taiwan.
The "transition-period generation" refers to Taiwanese who either participated in political movements or formulated their political views between the mid-1980s and the early 1990s, around the time that martial law was lifted, the authoritarian power structure was being loosened and social power was beginning to burst forth. After this generation," an even younger political generation took shape, though no formal name exists for it, as yet.
The "transition-period generation" occupies a unique position in Taiwan's political and social transition. Coming of age during the lifting of martial law, this generation shares the previous generations' experience of autocracy and isolation and understands the difficulties of the democratization process. Their views are miles apart from the newest, youngest political generation -- a group which takes democracy for granted.
The "transition-period generation" has, however, shared the youngest generation's experience of growing up in "post-scarcity" society. Thus, in terms of cultural tastes, this generation is more able to strike a responsive chord with the diverse younger generation. And in this sense the "transition-period generation" differs from the two previous generations, who matured during the "scarcity" of the 1960s.
This is perhaps a "bridge" generation. Because of the requirements of the democratization process and political transition, it has scurried to fill the gap between the older and younger generations. If, however, the "transition-period generation" satisfies itself with nimble positioning, and doesn't seek to foster communication and build leadership, it will eventually just fade away. In the eyes of its predecessors, this generation has always been seen as "little gofers," while the younger generation regards its members as "stick-in-the-muds."
The transition-period generation should indeed serve as a "bridge" generation. To put it bluntly, it must inherit the legacy of Taiwan's history and democratization and lead Taiwan to tackle the new political challenges brought by global trade and economics, the international framework built by the major powers and the widening gap between rich and poor.
In order to assume the role of "bridge," the transition-period generation must prepare to lead. Apart from running as legislators, this generation should also work hard to become leaders of public political opinion and offer its own reform agenda. Current efforts in this area are insufficient. Legislative candidates from the transition-period generation must have personal aspirations higher than just getting elected.
Jou Yi-cheng was formerly director of the DPP's Youth Department and is currently enrolled in the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.
Translated by Scudder Smith
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US