Bickering political parties that pursue partisan goals have left the public frustrated, disappointed and increasingly apathetic toward politics. There is, however, a way to stop this ineffective style of politics. As argued in the Chinese-language China Times article "Politics abandoned" recently, "only the development of civil society can stop the vicious political cycle."
Conferences and other activities organized by civic groups have become increasingly common since 2004, allowing the public to participate in the debate about politics, in the hope that the nation's democracy will improve through engaging the public.
Government organizations have held conferences on such diverse issues as surrogate motherhood, the national health insurance system, tax reform, the Maokong cable car system, water resource management, environmental protection and labor rights.
In addition to the public debate on national and municipal issues, civic groups are encouraging progressive activities in local communities.
Networks of academics, educational institutions and local organizations are holding conferences in cities as well as in the countryside.
Recent conferences have been held in Keelung, Ilan, Beitou (
This collaborative network brings together civil society, expands public participation in deliberative democracy to local communities, and diversifies its possibilities.
In the past, conferences on social and political issues were only held to discuss controversial issues.
However, local organizations have begun holding a variety of workshops, forums and debates on a variety of topics.
Even tough identity issues and cross-strait relations are being discussed by the public. Both the 2005 county commissioner and mayoral elections and last year's Taipei mayoral election employed deliberative TV debates in which the public could ask the candidates questions.
The development of civil society is causing the concept of "deliberative" democracy to grow. At the same time, it raises many questions, mostly in regard to conferences sponsored by the government.
The public should ask whether the participants at those conferences are qualified to represent public opinion.
There are many misunderstandings regarding forums and other similar activities. Many conferences have panels with less than 20 participants; they do not necessarily represent the range of opinions in the community they are discussing or the nation. They may differ greatly in terms of educational background, occupation and ethnicity.
But instead of focusing on whether they represent the community demographically, we should pay attention to their ability to reflect public opinion. We should look at whether or not their deliberation reflects the different stances, interests and values of the community.
Panelists do not make policy decisions. Public participation in deliberative democracy is meant to correct the shortcomings of representative democracy by allowing citizens the chance to influence policy-making actively.
The formation of public policy should incorporate public opinion through rational discussion and communication, but civil society cannot replace the role of the legislature and administration to create policies and implement them.
When legislating or drawing up policies, lawmakers and government officials should make use of public deliberation as a resource, tapping into public opinion and evaluating the political consequences of accepting or rejecting public opinion. In addition, they should account for their decisions.
However, listening to civil society doesn't mean they should always follow the tide of public opinion as expressed through civil groups.
Although discussions at conferences have no legal implications, they offer an opportunity to impact on democratic politics.
To accomplish this, activities should be timed to occur during policy formation.
Working with civic groups is also a way for our government to show that it is part of a truly democratic system.
During the deliberation process preceding legislation, the general public should make its opinions heard at conferences and forums -- which also provide the opportunity for people to learn about the issues at hand.
During this process, government agencies should be open about their policy proposals and explain the rationale behind them.
Open communication increases the chances that public values will be integrated. At the same time, open explanations of government policy can help build public trust in the government and its agencies.
In addition, working with civil society can improve the quality of policy-making. Bringing in public deliberation means incorporating local wisdom and the life experiences of the public.
That can make policy-making a more open process, more relevant to everyday issues and more realistic -- preventing policy-making that is impossible to implement.
In addition to the impact on policy-making, public deliberation encourages greater democracy in that it incorporates ethics.
A budding civil society in local communities nationwide will not necessarily have a direct impact on policy-making, but it will educate the citizens participating in these activities.
It has already become clear that open debate often helps the public better understand issues surrounding government policies. It also helps the average person look beyond their personal interests and pay attention to the public good.
When the public has the opportunity to participate in policy-making discussions and learn more about the issue at hand, they have the ability to form their own opinion.
It also makes them pay more attention to government policies that affect their lives and it encourages them to push for the kind of public policy that they believe in.
The key to improving the quality of the nation's democracy lies in the cultivation of a civil society that encourages people to learn about the issues surrounding policies, care about the public interest and participate in public affairs.
Lin Kuo-ming is an associate professor of the Sociology Department at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Ted Yang
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS