There is no denying the fact that Taiwan is a divided society and a fragile democracy. Although the presidential election ended peacefully, one would be hard pressed to see it as symbolic of a mature democratic system and culture. Since the turn of the millennium and possibly because of pressure from China, Taiwan has just barely been able to hold itself together with the help of "shared interests."
However, following the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) landslide loss to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in both the legislative and presidential elections, this mechanism is facing a crisis.
What are Taiwan's shared interests? The following are six that cannot easily be disputed disputed: Taiwan consciousness; a liberal democratic constitutional order; an uncorrupt and capable government and legal system; a steadily developing economy; social justice; and a diverse and tolerant culture and society.
Two other, possibly more debatable shared interests are transitional justice and an independent constitutional state. Further items could be added to this list and could probably be expressed in different ways. Although many might still be opposed to the last two interests, the first six are basic principles that most would agree with.
Taiwan consciousness simply means that Taiwan does not want to be treated as an inanimate object that can be moved around at will. The recent Chinese crackdown in Tibet has clearly demonstrated how Tibetans, along with their culture and region, have been treated as mere resources, a strategic piece of land and a political space that has resulted in Tibet losing both its freedom and dignity.
There is a crucial connection between Taiwan's sovereignty and the other shared interests. In other words, sovereignty is not an empty slogan, but rather contains many components such as democracy, rule of law, development, justice and diversity. Taiwanese self-awareness can only be achieved by constantly promoting, discussing, acting upon, systematizing and applying these five principles.
Based on our experiences and those of other countries, we can see that even for independent states and peoples, if there are lacunas in any of those five principles, they may not have much self awareness. Taiwan's democratic experience is evidence of how intricately these five aspects and the nation's self-awareness have been woven together.
Because of the weakness of those six shared interests, the divisions at the nation's core and clashes of ideas have, strangely enough, turned them into an appeal for "abstract ideals." Over the past 20 years or so, this confrontation has largely been based on the moral legitimacy of the DPP and has progressed within the changing constitutional framework, examples of which are the election of the whole legislature, constitutional amendments and interpretations, direct elections, and election and slander lawsuits.
Following the DPP's loss in the presidential and legislative elections, and, more importantly, the collapse of its moral legitimacy, the dynamic balance that used to be driven by politics, society, system and history, has also disappeared. The effect of this was that the pan-blue parties managed to obtain the rights to interpret and the power to guide Taiwan's shared interests, and also gained almost full control of the shaping of the entire system.
From the perspective of strict but maybe slightly formalistic constitutional theories, one might be right in arguing that one-party dominance should not be allowed to emerge in democratic systems. However, considering the above analysis and the current number of DPP seats in the legislature, the DPP is not only unable to play a leading part in the amendment of laws, the creation of new legislation or budget reviews, but it is also unable propose a constitutional interpretation that requires the support of one-third of all legislators.
Moreover, the Council of Grand Justices, the Control Yuan and the Examination Yuan will also soon be directed by the KMT, which will pose a great threat to the diversity of the political community.
The DPP's loss in the battle of ideas also means that unilateral decisions are now more likely when it comes to controversial topics such as transitional justice, the Suhua Freeway, nuclear power plants and capital punishment.
Although the DPP's defeat is, as many would argue, of its own making, Taiwanese must shoulder the consequences together. It is, however, pointless to try to assign blame for this outcome. Aside from hoping for the resuscitation of the DPP, it now seems that strengthening civil society is the only option left. However, with the unchangeable sanctimonious character of the KMT and both the public and the media's focus on the economy, it will be extremely difficult for civil society -- which no longer has the assistance of a political force with moral legitimacy -- to move forward.
But Taiwanese have chosen the long, hard road to democracy and we must all walk that road together.
Yen Chueh-an is a law professor at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
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