Since the “White Shirts” campaign in July last year, it is notable that the nation’s “net citizens” have unlocked a brand new kind of politics, which is opposed to the traditional mode of politics.
After the nine-in-one elections, both the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) simultaneously recognized the fact that net citizens were playing a crucial role in the transformation of the political environment.
The film Silent Code (BBS 鄉民的正義) recorded the birth of net citizenship and how it exerts a powerful influence in both the virtual and the real world.
In what follows, some critical implications of the birth of net citizens and their possible effect on net democracy in Taiwan are explored.
During the governance of the party-state democracy led by the KMT, the notions of transparency and human rights were always neglected. This means that in the past, public affairs were carried out under the table, and the exchange of political interests became normal within the structure of party-state governance and beneath the surface of two-party politics.
However, the wave of new socio-political movements (from last year’s white shirt movement to the Sunflower movement earlier this year) demonstrates the fact that “real democracy” will not be controlled by a small number of politicians making backroom decisions and that, in essence, people have the political right to take part in political decisions through the Internet and the media.
In general, the main effect of net citizenship is to revolutionize political orientation and make public issues more transparent and more readily adaptable to meet the public’s needs and its expectations of social justice.
One point that needs to be considered is the debate on “social reality” and “privacy protection” in the virtual political arena. Another issue is that false information can mislead net citizens concerning the obscure boundary between the regulation and the deregulation of “freedom of speech” in the virtual world.
Critically speaking, the sudden explosion of an “Internet army” led by different political groups has demonstrated that we are situated in a discursive epoch where the production and propaganda of political discourse reconstructs the new imagination of political governance.
Nevertheless, what we need to question and rethink is whether the birth of net citizens and net democracy is really sweeping away corruption to create the possibility of “full democracy” in Taiwan. Moreover, the way the quality of net democracy is evaluated raises new questions in the field of social science.
When considering the idea of embracing “net democracy” constructed by net citizens, the concept of democracy needs to be redefined and reconceptualized. The birth of net citizens not only opens up a new possibilities for political participation, it also raises questions about boundaries and the responsibilities of political speech.
Indeed, the real implication of net citizenship in the age of net democracy is that those who control the Internet win the political victory in the end.
Chung Ming-lun is a doctoral candidate at the University of Sheffield in England.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS