There should be little discussion that Taiwan’s hard-won democracy is vibrant. However, people interested in politics and current affairs often overlook the fact that the preoccupations of many may lie elsewhere, and for legitimate reasons.
That this is problematic is doubly true in Taiwan, as there is a real argument that the country’s sovereignty is in jeopardy. This is not simply because this perceived apathy by swathes of the public allows the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to manipulate the debate in the interests of its “united front” efforts, but also because the defense of Taiwan’s sovereignty may well depend on US military intervention or support. This intervention might not be forthcoming if Taiwanese are not perceived to be helping themselves.
The danger is that many people perceive that, far from having their will carried out through the democratic process, the opposite is true. Taiwanese politics is extremely polarized. Unless one party wins an absolute majority, the majority of the electorate would feel that the policies they voted for are not being represented. They might be asking where these politicians, who seek to represent them, come from.
In a country where the wealth disparity continues to grow and the poor hear of economic growth, but fail to see real improvements in their daily lives, can anyone blame them for feeling disengaged from the political process? Or, if they are engaged, in wanting a change from “business as usual”?
The nation’s sovereignty is of paramount importance. However, many people — rich and poor alike — look more to the effect of politics on their individual circumstances and those of their immediate group. Annexation by a CCP-controlled China will lead to the death of democratic freedoms in Taiwan, but what does that mean to those who feel that democracy does not serve them well?
Some are more interested in how political change would affect their material lives. With Taiwan’s economy in relative decline, especially compared with the heyday of the 1980s and 1990s, they might well see unification as a way to ride China’s rise.
Others might be asking how long the CCP would be able to cling to power, given suggestions of internal tensions within China that might precipitate its downfall. With no CCP, where is the problem with unification?
What of the people who value peace more than what democracy brings? Not just peace, but the avoidance of the horrors of war? You might disagree with them, but can you deny their logic or the balance of their preferences?
This is the Achilles’ heel of democracy in these troubled times. For those who value Taiwan’s continued democracy, sovereignty and de facto independence, such opinions present a formidable challenge. It is absolutely incumbent upon politicians to make their arguments more persuasive.
The backlash against “business as usual” in politics is a global trend. In the US, people disappointed with the political class voted in a businessman with no political experience. Ukrainians chose a comedian with neither political experience nor a network to support him.
In Taiwan, there is a real possibility that voters might turn their backs on the political establishment and look to Kaohsiung Mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) and Hon Hai Precision Industry Co chairman Terry Gou (郭台銘). Both men are charismatic individuals with the advantage of distance from the political elite to recommend them to disillusioned voters. Either could be nominated as the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) presidential candidate.
Taiwanese politicians need to find a way to give voters not just the perception, but the reality of the value of participation in the democratic process. They need to more effectively communicate the implications of their stances for people’s daily lives. They need to earn back the trust of the electorate.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
After “Operation Absolute Resolve” to capture former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the US joined Israel on Saturday last week in launching “Operation Epic Fury” to remove Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime leadership team. The two blitzes are widely believed to be a prelude to US President Donald Trump changing the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific region, targeting China’s rise. In the National Security Strategic report released in December last year, the Trump administration made it clear that the US would focus on “restoring American pre-eminence in the Western hemisphere,” and “competing with China economically and militarily
RSS