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.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS