The anti-President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) campaign was initiated and has been sustained by tremendous support from the pan-blue camp. It has also been strengthened by supporters motivated by former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Shih Ming-teh's (施明德) claim that he represents the people. Shih has duped many into backing the protests.
But do the protests really represent the public will? To a certain extent it does, but certainly not a majority.
The legislature, which is popularly elected, has the authority to represent the will of Taiwanese. The president is also directly elected by voters, and therefore is the most direct reflection of the popular will.
A dictatorship seeks to emphasize its "democratic" elements, but in a democracy it is the republican spirit that is important. This spirit emphasizes the rule of law, respect for political give-and-take and social reform through legal process.
Taiwan's pro-blue-camp media have continued to play up the idea that in a democratic country, the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly guarantee the citizens the right to demonstrate and demand that the president step down. In principle, this is correct, but when the rights of freedom of speech and assembly are stretched to become an excuse to deprive the majority of people of their freedom to make their own political choices, then there is a problem. We need to take a close look at such "freedom," and in some instances even use legal means to constrain this freedom.
Take the relatively developed democratic system of the US, for example. Not long ago, tens of thousands of people, including legal and illegal immigrants, marched in California and Washington demanding that Congress change its immigration policy to permit more immigration to the US and give illegal immigrants in the US welfare and legal status.
The demonstration fell within the limits of freedom of speech and expression, and therefore enjoyed the protection of the law. However, if this kind of protest were to surround Congress and the White House and refuse to end until President George W. Bush changed his policy, then the nature of the protest would have changed. Once the gathering obstructed the functioning of government, affected law and order or interfered with the very rule of law, then it would have to be checked.
Had it obstructed the normal functioning of the White House, Congress and general community order, then police would have intervened.
The media then would not accuse police of trampling on freedom of speech because disrupting social order is a separate issue -- and it is illegal.
Immigration law in the US is a product of the representatives of the American people. Anyone who opposes that law may express his opinion, but this does not give him the right to demand Congress and the president do everything according to his wishes. This is tantamount to demanding that millions of American voters be deprived of their right to a political choice.
Because laws are determined by Congress, it stands as the most authentic voice of the voter. A minority of protesters may express dissent, but it is unimaginable that in the US this right of choice would be taken away from the majority through forcing the president out of office or forcing Congress to change laws. It seems that the Shih supporters, who are pledging not to rest until Chen steps down, lack this basic understanding, which should in fact be shared by every citizen of a democratic country.
Looking back on the US in the 1970s, there were many protests by people opposed to the Vietnam War. However, they couldn't force the government to change its policy by surrounding Congress and the White House and not allowing government organizations to function. It was eventually a congressional vote that failed to support a military budget that ended the conflict. The policy change came completely through congressional procedures.
There is also a contentious split between the Democratic and Republican parties on the Iraq War, but the Democrats haven't begun any "topple Bush" movements. Rather, they have focused on this year's mid-term elections in November to try to win a majority in Congress so they can resolve the issue from there.
Those who speak of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly should remember a fundamental principle: Under the democratic rule of law, enjoying freedoms does not bestow the right to violate the freedoms of other people.
Let's say, for example, that a small group of people sitting in a theater stands up and says that the lead actor is performing poorly and should get off the stage, or that the play doesn't suit their taste. The content of their expression is protected, but by exercising their freedom in this way, they will have deprived the majority of spectators of their right to choose. At that point, security would remove them from the theater.
If one doesn't like an actor or play, one can express displeasure by not buying more tickets or not going to that theater again. If the majority of spectators make the same choice, the play will eventually close.
This kind of behavior is not protected by the law, and moves beyond the bounds of freedom of speech.
In a normal society, the anti-Chen demonstrations on Taipei's streets would not only have been prevented from going so far, but would also have been condemned by the public and attacked by a majority of media outlets. But Taiwan has only been a democratic society for a short time. Many people do not have an understanding of republicanism, while the media has developed in an unbalanced way.
And political parties are split along lines of national identity rather than on ideological issues as in other democratic countries.
But just like the series of street protests led by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) after the 2004 presidential election, the current campaign is doomed to fail. For although Taiwan's democracy is immature, it is still a democracy. As long as this fundamental does not change, then it must continue to proceed along the road of democracy.
The thousands of Shih supporters can yell and scream as loud as they like and indulge in their desire to create disorder. It will change nothing.
This anti-Chen movement, which began as a heroic tragedy, will ultimately end as a farce.
Cao Changqing is a writer based in the US.
Translated by Marc Langer
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.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past