In a democracy, every citizen has one vote through which they can elect their head of state, local leaders and representatives at the local and national levels. Civic rights, however, are not limited to casting that sacred vote, and only by providing a series of pre- and post-election measures will we be able to use the democratic system to fully manifest the fundamental principle that sovereignty lies with the people.
Although Taiwan has held many elections, there hasn't been much progress in either election format or attitudes. Many voters have no idea what their candidate stands for, or in what way that candidate might influence the creation of public policy.
Taiwanese voters are affected by personal, local and profit factors -- all of which are far removed from the idea of voting according to one's own free will. Voters also lack an understanding of how to continue to monitor their representatives' performance -- which has resulted in several elected politicians displaying quite repulsive behavior. The chaos in the legislature and the self-enriching legislation recently passed by the Taitung County Council are only the tip of the iceberg.
This is also why we should approach the legislative elections in January and the presidential election next March by asking whether there is a possibility to improve or completely redo elections so that voters can make their choice based on more complete information.
Loud and raucous campaign events don't normally occur in more advanced democracies, which usually use modern technology so that voters of different backgrounds can discuss issues that are of concern to everyone and check the reaction of candidates by asking them direct questions through electronic media.
One example is the recent debate between the Democratic Party's presidential hopefuls in the US where questions were gathered by CNN and YouTube. This approach allowed more people to participate directly in the democratic process.
What is stopping Taiwan from trying the same approach? I hope that the candidates, parties, nongovernmental organizations and the general public will be able to push for open and rational debate ahead of next year's polls. This would not only demonstrate democratic maturity, but would provide a channel by which voters can examine the candidates and their platforms.
Only if next year's elections lead to the introduction of new and innovative mechanisms for public participation will our election process move toward a more advanced democratic culture and improve the chances that competent legislators and a competent president are elected.
Ku Chung-hwa is a professor of sociology at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath