President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) presidency can best be described as a “democratic dictatorship” in that he often refers to the votes he garnered during last year’s election when claiming public support for his presidency.
Although it’s been nearly a year since the election, Ma still uses this approach as an endorsement of his policies and an affirmation of his political credibility, ignoring the fact that the election of a president and support for his administration are two entirely different issues.
Ma interprets the ballots cast in the presidential election as a blank check to be used as he sees fit — and even as an excuse to suppress public opinion.
This is clear evidence that in his view of democracy, an actively participating citizenry should be replaced by a passive group of voters that can only express their view on voting day, and that he should act as their representative at all other times.
All expression of public opinion on issues such as political credibility, sunshine legislation or cross-strait relations are restricted because in Ma’s mind, the public consists of voters and not citizens, democracy only exists on election day and total vote numbers replace expressions of public opinion.
This also explains why Ma is so dismissive of referendum democracy and why calls for the abolition of the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法) has been embroiled in dispute.
The idea of citizens expressing their views through street demonstrations or criticizing the government has become unacceptable in the president’s view. Democracy is reduced to the act of voting, while all other issues should be dealt with by the elite, and the president in particular.
The most obvious manipulation of the democratic process can be seen in the merging and elevated administrative status of Kaohsiung, Taichung and Taipei counties and cities, leading to suspicions that the local elections at the end of this year will be politically manipulated.
The greatest contribution of elections to democracy is the uncertainty about the popular choice, which implies that there will never be a perennial winner because the outcome is decided by a public that may change its mind at any time.
The biggest crisis facing Taiwan’s elections is this uncertainty may not be the result of the elite competing for public support, but instead a result of manipulation of the rules — be it by a single party or even just a single person.
If the rules of the game are not accepted by all participating parties, fair elections — the source of democratic legitimacy and consolidation — will deteriorate into manipulated elections, resulting in genuine democracy taking a step backward.
This all means that democratic elections are not necessarily a guarantee of freedom, something that is difficult to understand from the historically linear relationship between freedom and democracy which ignores the darker aspects of democratic elections.
Fareed Zakaria’s popular work — The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad — which was published in 2004, discusses the universality of the view that freedom is guaranteed by democracy based on the view that there is a balance between democracy and freedom.
In doing so, it also explains how Ma’s government is establishing a democratic dictatorship in Taiwan.
Hsu Yung-ming is an assistant professor in the department of political science at Soochow 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