A healthy democratic society needs balanced development in three domains: politics, markets and civil society.
The political domain includes the government, political parties and their peripheral organizations. Markets refer to the commercial domain, including the media, which control capital movements. Civil society refers to independent, non-governmental and non-political civic organizations and the actions of individual citizens beyond politics and markets.
To put it simply, as soon as political or commercial forces are involved in civil activities, they no longer belong to civil society. Similarly, a civil movement refers to a movement launched by civil society, and if political and commercial forces are involved, it is no longer a civil movement.
It has been more than a month since former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Shih Ming-teh (施明德) launched the his campaign to oust President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). Shih even launched a large demonstration on national day last Tuesday. He claims that the campaign is a new civil movement, and that is also the way many local media outlets report it.
But the campaign has been seriously distorted from the outset. Owing to direct involvement by both market and political forces, it has already lost the character of a civil movement, becoming a battleground for political and commercial actors.
The media's involvement is obvious. Not only have they run exaggerated and biased reports praising the campaign and deifying Shih, but they have also become the directors of the whole show. They have become accomplices, serving as the campaign's PR machine.
Newspapers reported that some TV stations doubled as the campaign's command headquarters during the demonstration, which violated the Broadcasting and Television Law (廣電法). Media reform groups have pushed for reforms to penalize this kind of behavior, but all their efforts now seem to have been in vain.
It would have been impossible for the campaign to last for over a month without political support. Take the demonstration on Tuesday for example -- legislators and city or county councilors from both the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party (PFP) were appointed to control 29 intersections around the Presidential Office. The two parties offered their full support to this event.
How much has Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) done for the campaign, and how much help did local blue-camp politicians offer during the campaign's recent round-the-island tour? We all know the answer to this question. PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) has even been given the title "night school dean" for joining the sit-in every night. Who believes that the campaign has not been mobilized by the pan-blue parties?
Some of the campaign's decisionmakers have long devoted themselves to civic movements in Taiwan. Regrettably, however, the KMT and PFP are also involved, while the campaign indulges itself in the myth created by the media, overturning the character of a civil movement and departing from civic society. Due to the direct involvement of both the media and political parties, the nature of the campaign has changed. The "anti-corruption" call has become a tool for power struggle between the ruling and opposition parties. This has caused a reaction from pan-green camp supporters, causing social division and confrontation.
By spreading hatred, nobody will be the winner. As society pays a high price, how much effort and time will it take to heal the wounds? More sadly, this self-proclaimed new civil movement has led to the failure of our civil society and regression of Taiwan's democracy.
Allen Houng is convener of the Constitution Reform Alliance.
Translated by 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