In his book Risk Society, sociologist Ulrich Beck proposed the concept of a "risk society." He used this concept to highlight the unpredictable high risks that modern technology brings, such as nuclear disaster or global warming. The concept implies that risk distribution has become a major issue external to wealth distribution and can only be prevented by the concerted effort of humanity as a whole.
At our current level of development, the risk society concept can of course be applied to Taiwan, which is why the members of the public who questioned the two presidential candidates during the first televised presidential debate were so concerned with environmental issues.
Of all the challenges that Taiwan may face in future, however, the most important may be the risk posed by our fuzzy national identity. In other words, because Taiwan is so restricted internationally by the "one China" concept, it has never been able to participate as a normal state at any level of global governance, instead being abandoned by the international community.
In the domestic political arena, this peculiar international status translates into a "unification or independence" complex that has resulted in a confused understanding of national identity. This in its turn has led to the insight that Taiwan is a "risk state" that continuously has to deal with a stream of domestic and international attacks and attempts at division.
One example of this is how, when Taiwan's representatives were stopped from attending the inauguration of South Korea's president a few days ago, some people in Taiwan said that Taiwan should not have sent "national" representatives, but rather "party" representatives if they wanted to be assured admittance.
This kind of discourse highlights the huge differences that exist within Taiwan. There is still no effective domestic consensus on Taiwan being an independent and sovereign state, not to mention a consolidated view of "national behavior" shared by the whole citizenry that would serve to strengthen Taiwan's risk management ability.
Against this ominous domestic backdrop, what kind of national leader should we elect? The Taipei Society (澄社) is gathering academics in preparation for a comprehensive investigation into the presidential candidates' personal character, their team, policy suggestions, executive abilities and vision. The most crucial components in this inquiry are their positions on the issue of national status and in what direction they want to take Taiwan.
Taiwan is not a normal state, a position that implies many unpredictable dangers. Because of this, the national leader must not be a president for an era of tranquility. Instead, he must at all times display strong determination and visionary decision-making to lead the country out of this dangerous situation and on toward independence to avoid becoming an appendage to another state.
Whether we will elect a president capable of shouldering the important task of leading a "risk state" will depend on our ability to understand Taiwan's difficult situation.
Ku Chung-hwa is a professor in the Department of Sociology at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
RSS