A glance through the pages of the history of democracy reveals that democratic systems evolve over time, rather than arriving perfectly in one go, and that the road to democracy is strewn with difficulties and setbacks. Even the “advanced democracies of Europe and America” — a phrase that slips so easily off the tongue — went through a period of excruciating labor pains before giving birth to democracy.
Take, for example, the US, which many consider to be the biggest representative of democracy in the world today. Genuinely equal rights for men and women did not arise of their own accord when the US emerged as an independent nation.
It was not until the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution was passed in 1920 that women were given the right to vote in all US states. As for black Americans, they had to wait another 45 years for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to ensure their right to vote in every state.
These democratic countries’ troubled past now serves as a negative lesson for newly emerging democracies as they select and design their democratic systems.
It is now very difficult for any country that seeks to differentiate people’s political rights according to factors such as race, color, gender, wealth and creed to be accepted by the global democratic community as one of its members.
Democratic politics has evolved and is distinguished by two important features.
The first is that the system is more important than individuals. In a well-developed system, the nation’s leader does not have to be a superman, nor a professor of this or that. To put it plainly, in a democratic society, nobody is indispensable, because there is no shortage of talented people capable of leading the country.
However brilliant a leader may be, when that leader leaves the stage, the sun will still rise in the east right on time the next day. There is no room in a democracy for one person to rule the country for 20 or 30 years.
It is not acceptable for a strongmen to treat political power as their own or their family’s exclusive domain: These include leaders like Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), who ruled Taiwan in succession until the end of their days; Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, who ruled Tunisia for 23 years; Hosni Mubarak, who ruled Egypt for 30 years; and Muammar Qaddafi, who ruled Libya for 42 years. Even if these leaders had the title of “president,” in what way were they different from the kings and emperors of ancient times?
The second feature of a modern democracy is that it means that the people rule, not that somebody rules on behalf of the people.
The military-political form of “democracy” that one sees under dictatorships does not fit the bill, while the didactic democracy that is controlled by an elite who double as rulers and teachers is also being swept into the dustbin of history.
Democracy today is no longer a matter of choosing someone to sit in a lofty place, or even riding on the backs of the public, giving instructions about this and that and making decisions on behalf of everyone else.
Instead, it is about appointing people to seek and form a consensus — through referendums if need be.
After that, all they have to do is to carry out the policies entrusted to them by the public. Indeed, democracy means that everything leaders do in government is based on the public will.
It means that leaders should obey everyone else, not that everyone else should obey the leaders.
So, questions like whether economics or the environment should be given top priority, whether abortion should be allowed and whether euthanasia should be legalized should not depend on what those in government think, or be decided by the president alone.
These issues are for the public as a whole to decide. The question of whether we should go on building nuclear power plants is definitely not part of the president’s remit.
If the majority of citizens are in favor of scrapping nuclear energy and building a nuclear-free country, then those in government only have two options: They can either faithfully implement what the people have decided, or step down and let someone else take over.
A recent example is the petition for medical parole for former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), which was launched and supported by people from the ruling Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) as well as opposition parties.
From both a human-rights standpoint and a humanitarian point of view, and according to presidential prestige and the fundamentals of democratic behavior, it is not appropriate for the country’s top leader to step in before a majority view has been established among the public and to arrogantly express his or her personal views and issue instructions willy-nilly.
Nevertheless, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) came up with an extremely provocative comment about the signature drive, asking whether its supporters thought they could force him to give in.
Apart from revealing his mindset and attitude, Ma’s remark illustrates his complete disdain for public opinion and indeed his hostility to it. It was a very unwise thing for Ma to say.
When the nation’s leaders make decisions on behalf of the public on major issues and the policy turns out to be wrong and causes hardship in its wake, does the government make efforts to pinpoint who was responsible? At most, a few unfortunate bureaucrats get suspended from their posts and put under investigation. Having found someone to blame, the issue is considered closed, but the punishment always falls far short of the damage that has been done.
Surely, a much better model of democracy would be for the public to be in charge, to decide things together and bear the consequences together.
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired associate professor of National Hsinchu University of Education.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath