The campaign against President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), which has lasted for more than a month, is preparing to adopt more radical strategies.
From a nationwide demonstration and strike to a protest on Double Ten National Day, each move risks escalating tensions and heightening political uncertainty. However, creating conflict is not necessarily just a way of showing one's strength; it may also serve to rally supporters and maintain momentum when morale flags.
I believe that initiators of a movement can exert greater influence over the public if they choose to give up their battlefield in the streets.
Take Taiwan's environmental protection movements for example. Sporadic environmental protests against pollution had already occurred even before martial law was lifted in 1987. After that time, the public began to air grievances that had long been repressed and the scale of street demonstrations also began to grow.
Later, when then premier Hau Pei-tsun (郝柏村) clamped down on the "environmental thugs," some activists turned to violence, and the environmental struggle reached new a level.
In 1991, there was a total of 215 protests. In the mid-1990s, as this country was striving toward becoming a democracy, the number of street demonstrations stood at 150 per year. The transition of power in 2000 further reduced the number of protests, and the figure fell to less than 100 in the following years.
The decrease in the number of environmental protests does not mean that environmental protests are disappearing. On the contrary, without the media attention and the participation of a passionate crowd, activists still manage to deeply affect the way people conduct their daily lives in relation to the environment.
More than a decade ago, a group of environmental activists returned to their hometowns from Taipei and began to instill into rural folk the concept of environmental protection and "caring for our hometowns." In addition, local residents learned to play an active role by turning themselves into community guardians rather than just seeking to oppose pollution and angle for compensation.
Professionals in the field also worked to enhance the knowledge of non-governmental organizations and taught people how to implement the idea of environmental protection in their daily lives.
The cause of environmental protection therefore no longer had to be expressed in the form of mass rallies.
The days of noisy street protests have led to community mobilization, policy consultation and new ways of living. It has become a silent revolution.
Over the years, activists discovered that protests could be sparked by revelations of the victims of environmental damage. While these protests could generate tremendous short-term impact, once the immediate environmental problem facing the public was solved, the public's interest would fade.
Social movements that solely depend on mobilization of protesters only have a superficial effect. Although they may prevent a specific environmental problem from degenerating further, they are rarely able to improve the situation.
Social movements cannot rely only on street protests to achieve their goal. In fact, the anti-Chen protests around the country are now constraining the effectiveness of the campaign against government corruption directed at him. If the rejection of corruption cannot be incorporated into the system of government, then the current protests will never be able to shake off the taint of being politically motivated.
Ho Ming-sho is an associate professor in the Department of Applied Sociology at Nanhua University.
Translated by Daniel Cheng and Eddy Chang
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