Taiwan has gone through two transfers of political power since it first became a democracy. Unfortunately, the democratization process, something many Taiwanese are proud of, seems to have lost momentum. Taiwanese politics currently labors under a lack of leadership, poor governance, anemic vision and the heavy-handed tactics of the government under President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
Society has tried to make its voice heard, organizing protests and vehemently objecting to what is happening, but has only succeeded in retarding the pace at which this government is wreaking its damage. The protests have neither succeeded in forcing those responsible to resign, nor have they been able to make this arrogant administration stop, reflect on what it is doing and change course.
The largest opposition party, which bears the hopes and expectations of the public on its shoulders, has taken a back seat, while its very founding principles — “integrity, diligent government and love of country” — together with its reformist, progressive image, have all become obscured. It is as if it is placing all its hopes in increasing the sense of disillusionment with the government among the electorate in the belief that all it needs is to make a call for unity and, come the 2016 presidential election, it will be swept back into power.
As a result, the opposition feels it is only worthwhile expending energy on making alliances among local factions and carving up the booty in preparation for contesting the next presidential election.
Two men, one from each party, are good examples of the rot that has set in. From the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) there is Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), and from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) there is its perennial caucus whip, Legislator Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘). These men, both legislators-at-large and major figures within their parties, colluded in a shameful attempt to make amendments to the Accounting Act (會計法) that would absolve a corrupt gangster of guilt — initially with Ma’s approval.
Subsequently, the scandal over the improper exertion of influence over the judiciary broke and amid the ensuing chaos caused by Ma’s clumsy and unconstitutional handling of the situation, and Prosecutor-General Huang Shih-ming’s (黃世銘) illegal abuses of power, legislators from both parties were able to obfuscate the issue and characterize it all as one big misunderstanding, giving the impression that all was well in the higher echelons of power.
Meanwhile, the noisome, smarmy group of politicians behind this mess was allowed to remain in power. Nobody has been called to account and nobody has stepped down.
Many people have lost faith in two-party representative politics. The problem is, there seems to be little possibility that anything will change. As far as the two parties with a hold on politics in this country are concerned, their interests lie in persuading the public that there is no possibility of change, that there is no alternative, just as when you want to fill your tank with gas you can either choose to buy from Chinese Petroleum Corp, Taiwan, or Formosa Petrochemical Corp, and that is all.
Regardless of whether it is the current electoral format decided upon through the collusion of the two main parties or whether it is the failed experiment of what was called the “third power,” it all reinforces the idea that society is powerless to do anything about the political landscape, whether it wants to or not.
Despite this, nobody who has paid any attention to developments in Taiwan over the past two years could conclude that the public is taking all this sitting down. In a whole range of issues — from the protection of democracy and human rights to environmental conservation; from judicial reform to the pursuit of social justice — the public has consistently been there, one group or another standing at the forefront, banding together and protesting politicians’ abuses of power and how they have colluded with big business to rob society of its resources.
Not only have these people not relinquished, they have striven to wake up others to the issues, exhorting more people to rise against the powers that be. Gone is the attitude that it is sufficient to sit in front of the TV watching political commentary shows, railing at the wrongdoing: Now people are getting involved.
Politics is about solving problems that involve the public through the pursuit of specific values. Civil society lies at the roots of politics, and the participation of civil society ought to be a fundamental aspect of politics. Now that the two-party system has descended into a contest between court politics on the central government level and factional politics on the local, it neither cares about nor is able to respond to the needs of society.
Given this, the public needs to reorganize itself, give Taiwan’s moribund democracy and politics a chance to turn itself around and allow the nation to move forward in the only way that is rational. Society’s active participation in politics simply means ordinary people reclaiming the power that is rightfully theirs.
Whether an emerging third political force will have an impact depends entirely, to borrow from economics, on simple supply and demand. In terms of demand, if the respective main party elites are able to respond to the public’s needs and to give some grist to their respective support bases, then there will be neither the opportunity, nor indeed the need, for a new force in Taiwanese politics.
On the other hand, if neither of the main parties attempts to or is capable of addressing the emergence of this demand, then the success of a new political force will depend on the “supply,” and whether it will be able to offer something above and beyond the existing options.
In addition to representing civil society, this third force must also exhibit social responsibility and sufficient competence. However, more crucial will be whether it can offer a new vision of democratic politics, establishing a viable mechanism that will not only facilitate better oversight by society — so that unchecked or even corrupt elected representatives can be ousted — but that will also give people easier access to direct participation and decisionmaking and thereby realize the democratic ideal.
The emergence of a third force in Taiwanese politics means more than just having another option. It also means giving Taiwanese democracy and politics a new lease on life.
When this nascent force becomes strong enough, it will be able to force the two major political parties to take internal reform seriously if they are not to consign themselves to a destiny of creeping obsolescence. And it is only when this new force truly becomes an agent of the core values of civil society that it will have sufficient influence to transform democracy and politics in Taiwan.
Huang Kuo-chang is an associate research fellow at the Academia Sinica’s Institutum Iurisprudentiae.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US