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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS