A referendum is an expression of direct democracy. It compensates for the shortcomings of a representative democracy. Having a democracy is not only about letting people vote, but also about letting them vote on public issues. Referendums allow voters to express their preference on specific matters, and raise the general level of civic understanding.
Intensive debate and analysis prior to a referendum stimulate general concern about society and facilitate an understanding of public affairs. They increase the public’s understanding of the strengths and shortcomings of different views, which improves a democratic system.
Taiwan has set in place a mechanism for holding referendums, but there is no platform for informing the public as to their content, or showcasing the two sides of the issue being voted on. This is extremely dangerous.
A prerequisite for referendums should be the organization of public discussion and debates. Without these, referendums deviate from the true spirit of direct democracy. Any new system must be carefully thought through, or its flaws risk plunging society into turmoil.
With the volume of online information and the prevalence of fake news, the government should establish a public discussion platform. Through negotiations with existing networks, a TV channel could be created that focuses solely on broadcasting debates on referendum proposals. For example, the Public Television Service could air debates on referendum issues and discussions from both sides.
Elections in Taiwan are essentially about voting for individuals. Voters will turn out on election day, even though they understood that the winner will most likely fall short of the public’s expectations and fail to represent everyone’s interests.
It is generally understood, too, that elected officials might become embroiled in corruption somewhere down the line. Most Taiwanese are familiar with the concept of “casting one’s ballot in tears,” where one is perfectly aware that no ideal candidates exist.
Voting on a public issue is a different matter, because each voter has a voice — saying whether they are for or against something — and knows that their choice has a direct impact on an issue that will shape the nation.
Voting on a public issue in a referendum is not only a citizen’s right, but also their civic duty. When casting that ballot — on whether, for example, to resume nuclear power generation — the voter is master of the nation.
Government officials as high as the president and the premier must all comply with the result collectively decided on. Therefore, before casting a ballot, people ought to work hard to understand the issue’s context and mull over a referendum’s potential impact, because everyone, including future generations, will be affected the result.
Most Taiwanese are indifferent to politics, considering themselves mere bystanders in the civic sphere. Since the end of last year, when amendments to the Referendum Act (公民投票法) were adopted, no one need feel like a civic onlooker.
Casting a ballot and proposing a referendum are both participation. If people feel that something is wrong in society, or in need of improvement, they can organize, propose a referendum and launch a petition. If a referendum passes, the government is obliged to act.
Referendum topics can vary from whether legislation limiting the number of vehicles should be enacted to whether public land should only be rented, not sold, and whether public transportation in remote areas along the coast or in the mountains — where it has been halted for years — should be restored.
Subjecting issues closely related to daily life to public participation marks a giant step for democracy. Granting people the means to change public decisions through a vote helps dispel political lethargy and a feeling of powerlessness, enhances public engagement and deepens democracy.
More importantly, referendums can change decisionmaking in local communities, such as on whether to change intersections near schools into pedestrian zones when students are on their way to and from school, and on whether to widen sidewalks or construct more bike routes. In other words, referendums on local matters could boost civic power and bond communities.
However, the amended act contains no detailed provisions on holding local referendums, and shifting the responsibility for drafting these rules to each locality would only make local referendums an impossibility, because local governments do not want to share decisionmaking with their residents.
The government should put more pressure on communities to hold local referendums.
The road to democracy is a long and winding one. After the Democratic Progressive Party won a legislative majority and the presidency in 2016, the “birdcage” referendum act was amended, lowering the thresholds to 1.5 percent of eligible voters for the required number of signatures and 25 percent for a referendum to pass, making direct democracy a reality.
The centuries-long road to democracy has been filled with blood and tears, and only by putting the Referendum Act in its historical context can the accomplishment be truly cherished. The government must consolidate the referendum mechanism, learn the lessons of the past and work to further Taiwan’s democracy.
With that in mind, two crucial tasks should be added to the government’s to-do list: A public TV channel should be launched to host open discussion and debate on referendum issues and the referendum law should be amended to include detailed provisions for local referendums.
Huang Wu-hsiung is a professor emeritus of National Taiwan University’s mathematics department.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers