The term "civil society" has been bandied about a lot in recent weeks in relation to the campaign to oust President Chen Shui-bian (
However, like most political commentary in Taiwan, the truth is often buried, or sidelined, by the personalities involved and their political agendas. Both sides are guilty of this. In the midst of this muckraking, obstinance and sheer bloody-mindedness, the truth of civil society is lost.
What is meant by "civil society"?
The term was popularized during the late 1980s and early 1990s against the backdrop of a disintegrating Soviet Union and the collapse of authoritarian regimes across Eastern Europe. In many respects, it was a woolly way of explaining the sudden resurgence of bottom-up political action that swept the region, and evolved out of a liberal-democratic capitalist thesis that put the middle-classes at the heart of struggles against authoritarian states.
While civil society was not considered to be the exclusive preserve of the middle-classes, they tended to dominate the myriad of social organizations such as sports clubs, business associations, environmental groups and organized labor that comprised it. This is the essence of civil society. It is not in itself political. Taiwanese politicians please take note.
So how does a motley collection of apolitical groups enter the political arena?
Generally, civil society becomes politicized, and rebels, when its civil space has been eroded -- usually by illiberal regulations and authoritarian dictates. However, such a civil rebellion is not inevitable.
First, groups must have a pre-existing sense of them-selves, their social rights and roles. Alternatively, an existing authoritarian regime that had previously crushed all civil movements could relax its hold on society allowing space in which new civil groupings could emerge. These are important distinctions that define the boundaries of any conflict between society and state or between different civil factions.
Given all this, how should we consider the recent unrest in Taiwan? Is it a truly civil action? Are the actors genuine representatives of social groups? Is there a real possibility of it escalating into a nationwide grass-roots movement? How relevant is Taiwan's own democratization moment to the current situation?
Taiwan's current political situation is colored by the remnants of the previous Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime. The country, to use a metaphor, has a hangover and needs to completely rid itself of the toxins that dampen the mood of the nation and affect the very behavior of its people.
That said, the withdrawal of the state into a more prescribed role has been widely praised. The military has distanced itself and reaffirmed its focus on external threats. Elections at all levels have started to embed the notion that political competition is not a zero-sum game.
Unfortunately, not only does this seem to be restricted to the political realm, but even here groups, mostly with ties to the older KMT regime, have had problems accepting this idea.
Together, these elements have led to an explosion in the number of civil groups throughout Taiwan. But these have generally been absent from the rallies and commentary.
There has been some civil involvement like the request from a group of lawyers and another from a group of academics asking Chen to step down, but mostly the situation is politically driven. The appearance of politicos, and the usual pan-blue suspects in particular, further delegitimize it as a civil phenomenon.
The anti-Chen movement has clear limitations. Taiwan is still a relatively young democratic society. While procedurally it has the trappings of a liberal democracy, it is still a democracy with "Chinese characteristics."
Which brings me to my final point about what civil society is.
For a nation to have a civil society it must be civil. This is not a play on words. When the people are generally peaceful, readily obey reasonable laws and tend to compromise, positive relationships flourish.
The alternative is bad civil society, where social interactions are dominated by extremism, unreasonableness and an unwillingness to compromise. An uncivil society is prone to spasms and conflict.
Taiwan has elements of both. It is young and untested. The real danger of the last several years and the current protests is that a bad civil society will emerge.
Taiwanese citizens are therefore faced with a choice, not over their leaders, who are mostly products of their environment, but over their society. Which is it to be? Civil or uncivil?
Ben Adams is a political analyst from New Zealand now based in Taipei.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS