Michael Hsiao (蕭新煌) raised the question recently: What can Tai-wan do for democracy in Asia?
Does Taiwan's democratization still serve as a model for the political development of other Asian countries? Hsiao focused on the relationship between social activism and political transformation. I would like to put in my two cents here and discuss the unique challenges facing the development of democracy in Taiwan.
Democracy's momentum has been fading since the political transition in 2000. In other words, there is a lack of faith in the superiority of democracy. Comparing democracy with economic development, the public believes the latter is far more important. Comparing democracy with the stability of the past authoritarian era, they believe authoritarianism may be more effective. In both contexts, such sentiments are expressed in the nostalgia for the late president Chiang Ching-kuo (
To our astonishment, studies comparing society's evaluation of different government agencies show that the public has more trust in the military and public servants than in the institutions of democracy, such as political parties, the media and the Legislative Yuan. In other words, the public views the related actors in democratic politics as the sources of social instability -- and as the primary obstacles to economic growth.
Many media institutions and even the political elite have doubts about the competitiveness of the nation's democratic system as they look at China's rapid development. They are becoming envious of the authoritarian development model across the Taiwan Strait. This and the Chiang fever are two sides of the same coin. They represent the waning of democracy and a nostalgia for the authoritarian past. In politics, it takes shape as a conservative environment in tandem with the confrontation between the pan-blue and pan-green camps.
Apparently, this fluctuating public sentiment is linked to the difficulties facing the administration. It is definitely related to the economic situation because democracy is indeed less effective than authoritarian politics when it comes to bringing wealth and stability.
On the other hand, democratic values have not deepened in the public psyche. Much of the time, democracy is equated with elections. Partisan victory and defeat affect the public's evaluation of the democratic system. The development of democracy is now at a crossroads.
It will either wither or deepen. These are the two choices in the development of democracy in Taiwan. To wither means a negation of democracy's superior value, a compromise on political progress and a return to the developmental logic in which the economy overrides everything else. To deepen means facing up to the challenges in the implementation of democracy, invoking direct participation by the public and taking the initiative to correct the defects of representative politics. Only then can we have a chance to bring back a sense of efficacy in democracy.
These two paths are intertwined with the presidential election. They are reflected in the competition between the candidates and echoed in the many referendum issues that have surfaced. Of course, whether to hold referendums has become an issue regarding the future of democracy in Taiwan. From the perspective of comparative politics, how Taiwan walks the path of democracy at this time will serve as a model for both the Asian democracies affected by the rise of China, as well as non-democracies.
Hsu Yung-ming is an assistant research fellow at the Sun Yat-Sen Institute for Social Sciences and Philosophy of the Academia Sinica.
Translated by Francis Huang
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers