With rising unemployment and a sharp drop in exports, China and Taiwan are both facing economic recessions. But which government is better equipped to deal with the downturn?
Past experience has shown that the true test of governing systems is not when the economy is chugging along smoothly, but rather when it hits a bump in the road or comes to a screeching halt.
In a declining economic environment, democratic systems have been found to be more stable, flexible and well-equipped than their authoritarian counterparts to address such changing circumstances. Nevertheless, even in democracies, times of economic hardship can correspond to deteriorations in civil liberties, as politicians coming under fire from frustrated citizens seek to minimize criticism.
As two governments at opposite ends of the democratic-authoritarian spectrum, Taiwan and China are emerging as key case studies for how these complex dynamics play out this year. A brief look at the condition of core institutions — such as the media and law enforcement — at the end of last year, offered insight into how prepared the two societies are for successfully overcoming these challenges.
Beyond the worlds of business interactions and tourist attractions that outsiders most commonly encounter, China remains a one-party state governed by one of the world’s most repressive regimes. Despite playing host to the Olympics last year and making pledges years ago to improve human rights ahead of the Games, China’s leaders failed to institute significant democratic reforms or even gestures toward improved rights protection.
Instead, during the year, there was an evident backtracking when it came to core institutions and freedoms. The Communist Party tightened control over key elements of the judiciary, with courts refusing to even hear cases on issues of accountability based on “orders from above.” Among those rejected were lawsuits filed by parents of children killed in collapsed school buildings in Sichuan Province and made sick from melamine-tainted milk.
There were crackdowns on bloggers, human rights lawyers, petitioners and those seeking to protest during the Games. Of particular note was a nationwide escalated persecution of minorities. From Tibetans to Uighurs to Falun Gong adherents to “house church” Christians, thousands of believers found themselves facing an intensified campaign of arbitrary detention, labor camp sentences and, in some cases, death in custody.
At the end of the year, as it became evident that China’s economy would be pulled down along with the rest of the world, the authorities appeared to be preparing for further restrictions on freedom of expression and judicial independence. More than 100 signatories on the pro-democratic “Charter 08” have reportedly been detained or interrogated, while the head of China’s supreme court recently called on judges to prioritize “social stability” in their rulings.
The irony is that such orders tend to undermine social stability as people take to the streets in frustration because there is no independent court system to guarantee compensation or curb corruption.
Taiwan, by contrast, has distinguished itself globally over the past two decades by its achievements in becoming a fully fledged member of the community of democracies. With a free press, a generally protected right to free assembly, elected representatives and a well-developed judiciary, the Taiwanese polity has a wide range of self-corrective mechanisms in place to weather economic and political storms.
Nevertheless, recent months have also seen several incidents that indicate some of these key institutions are coming under pressure.
Restrictions on protesters and police violence during the visit of Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), a perceived selectiveness in corruption prosecutions, suspicious circumstances of judges’ appointments to former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) corruption case and proposed legislation that would enable program-by-program government scrutiny of public broadcasting have raised concerns both domestically and internationally that some of Taiwan’s hard-won democratic gains may be regressing.
A series of KMT summits with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials has further raised fears of back-door dealings on crucial economic questions and of Taiwanese officials stooping to the CCP’s level of non-transparency and manipulation.
But unlike in China, these events have triggered some of the “checks and balances” mechanisms common in democracies. The media have reported extensively on these incidents and the different viewpoints regarding them. Citizens and rights groups have lodged court complaints over police violence. A student-led civil disobedience movement has grown, demanding greater freedom of assembly. Opposition legislators are critiquing the proposed public broadcasting bill in the legislature.
That is why if the current administration responds positively to these efforts, taking a more inclusive approach to governance and safeguarding fundamental democratic features of transparency and the rule of law, then Taiwan would be well-poised to deal with the economic crisis.
China, on the other hand, is likely in for a rocky ride as nothing suggests the CCP is at all prepared to have a genuinely open conversation about the country’s future with the people it rules.
Sarah Cook is an Asia researcher at Freedom House. She is visiting Taiwan for today’s launch of Freedom in the World, the organization’s annual assessment of political rights and civil liberties around the world.
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS