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
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