After 100 days in office, US President Barack Obama has used his unique sense of democracy to quietly change the relations the US has with the rest of the world while still battling with economic issues. During his eight years in office, former US president George W. Bush not only turned the world’s economy upside down, he also isolated the US and severely damaged its leading position in the world. In contrast, in only 100 days, Obama has gradually restored the international status of the US and in doing so, he has also brought about a new world order. Some have said that this is due to Obama’s charm, but more correctly it is the result of his special sense of “soft” democracy.
People usually define democracy as a political system that incorporates monitoring, checks and balances and resistance. This is the hard side of democracy. Bush ruled through this kind of hard democracy and tackled domestic and foreign affairs problems in a reckless, confrontational manner. He refused to engage in dialogue with those who would not “cooperate” and this led to a variety of crises at home and abroad.
In addition to this hard side of democracy, there is also a “soft” side that involves respect, communication, dialogue and cooperation. Both hard and soft aspects are indispensable in a democracy.
However, in the current political environment, people stress hard democracy, which in many cases has become the only definition of democracy, while soft democracy has become politically incorrect. It is this one-sided understanding of democracy that has caused world, and in some countries also domestic, order to collapse.
Japan has been stagnant for nearly two decades. The reasons for this are many, but one key factor is the dominance of hard democracy which makes any dialogue and cooperation between factions and political parties nearly impossible. Recent Japanese prime ministers have only lasted in office for a few months. Soft democracy has disappeared and it is becoming harder to find solutions to an increasing number of problems.
Obama has succeeded because he has brought soft democracy back into politics. At international conferences, Obama speaks very little and is instead willing to listen to people from other countries. When he does talk, he is positive, gives praise and is constructive. During the G20 summit, Obama admitted that the US had acted in an arrogant, rude and disinterested manner on many occasions. While in Turkey, he said it was a failure on behalf of the US to not sign the Kyoto Protocol. He relaxed restrictions against Cuba and took the initiative to extend friendship to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who is well known for his anti-US views. Obama has also bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. US relations with these nations that in the past have been hostile to the US are gradually improving because of Obama’s use of soft democracy.
Apart from the use of soft democracy, another factor behind Obama’s charisma is his discussion of “values” such as global denuclearization and the curbing of global warming, thus bringing a vision and a way out of the current international situation. Of course, nobody would believe in these values and they would have no effect if they were proposed by hard democrats such as Bush.
However, by his use of soft democracy, listening, respect, dialogue and cooperation, Obama makes us feel that these values have the potential to be realized. Hard democracy can only temporarily uphold the power balance or terror balance, whereas soft democracy can find new solutions and implement values.
By looking at Obama, we can gain some insight into the political situation in Taiwan. Without a doubt, Taiwan is a sacred place for hard democracy. When the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was in opposition, it constantly blocked issues such as the general budget and the president’s nominations for the Control Yuan and had no wish to engage in dialogue. The party also wanted to impeach the president after he committed a policy mistake.
Now that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is in opposition, they have not come up with any meaningful alternatives to the KMT’s policy; they have simply busied themselves opposing this, that and the other. For example, even on the immensely important issue of signing an economic cooperation framework agreement with China, DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) is only interested in engaging President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in debate rather than communication.
Debate is bound to cause polarization, thus making communication and dialogue increasingly difficult. What hope does a country have when its leaders are unwilling to sit down and discuss issues?
Under such an atmosphere of mutual antagonism, politics become a contest for material resources and when this happens, political parties, factions and even individuals will start to monitor each other, keep checks and balances on each other and resist each other. These are aspects that a democracy must be based on and there is nothing wrong with this.
However, if we only have this kind of hard democracy without the soft aspects of democracy, the result of opposition will be the survival of the fittest, which has nothing to do with values. Taiwan will be unable to find a direction and a path for itself and will start to tread water or even descend into chaos. This is the reason for all the chaos in Taiwan over the past decade, in Japan for the past 20 years and in the US under the eight years of Bush, and it may even be the main reason why the world is in such a messed up state at the moment.
To overcome these problems, we must use hard democracy as a solid base on which to lay more fertile ground for a softer democracy. This is the only hope we have for creating new order and new values.
Lii Ding-tzann is a professor in the Graduate School of Sociology at National Tsing Hua University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) has said that the armed forces must reach a high level of combat readiness by 2027. That date was not simply picked out of a hat. It has been bandied around since 2021, and was mentioned most recently by US Senator John Cornyn during a question to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday. It first surfaced during a hearing in the US in 2021, when then-US Navy admiral Philip Davidson, who was head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said: “The threat [of military
RSS