Department of Health Minister Yaung Chih-liang (楊志良) recently criticized the government, complaining about how too many democratic elections “interfere” with public policy. This attitude is perhaps best illustrated by the way in which the ruling party is determined to sign an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China despite widespread opposition.
The proposed agreement with China has also prompted the Taiwan Solidarity Union and more than 50 pro-independence, labor, business and industry groups, to call for a referendum in the hope of stopping it. This situation illustrates the need to reconsider the relationship between democracy and specialization. Failure to do so could undermine the legitimacy of democratic participation and its role in the determination of public policy.
Public policy is related to the pursuit of public interest. In the past, when governments were more authoritarian, public interest was mostly decided by those in power. However, as Taiwan embraced democratization, businesses and members of mainstream society were encouraged to participate in the process by making their own proposals. This demonstrated an understanding that definitions of public interest could differ, and that in any society, public interest is an ongoing competition between different forces. If we want to achieve consensus on what public interest entails, as many different people as possible need to participate.
In contrast, those currently in power appear to have done the exact opposite. In addition to applying the knowledge of so-called “experts” to the formation of public policy, officials seem determined to embrace their ideas as the only standard worth listening to. Administrative organizations have worked hard to apply the ideas of experts to the resolution of complex social problems. While this may reduce the severity of certain problems, results can just as easily fall short of expectations and in some cases make problems worse.
When experts are unable to solve social problems, strange things happen. For example, such individuals often believe that problems are not caused by a lack of specialized technical knowledge, but by a lack of reason or rationale. This leads to the conclusion that it is society and democratic politics that need to be reassessed and reformed.
Another example of this trend can be seen when people oppose solutions proposed by experts. When this happens, these people are invariably accused of “politicization,” of being irrational, subjective and biased. Those in power say that irrational, mainstream opinions must be eliminated from the policy formulation process. This approach has been applied a great deal lately and has resulted in social problems being reclassified by those in power as special problems that can only be solved by a minority of experts. The implication is that democratic participation is a hindrance to effective policy making.
This is very worrying; it forces us to ask whether “government by experts” is really in tune with the public interest. In the rapidly changing age of the Internet, are not the opinions of experts themselves also limited?
We need to consider how best to combine specialized technical knowledge with more generalized knowledge, and ways to bring together individuals from academia and social groups to reach a consensus on public interest. When public policy decisions are being made, experts and those in power also need to accept the importance of the democratic process, rather than simply dismissing the ideas of those who are not in power or experts in related fields.
Hsu Shih-jung is a professor in the Department of Land Economics at National Chengchi 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