Taiwan used to be credited for the economic miracle it created and was considered a role model for its "silent revolution" of democratic reform along "the third wave of democratization." After experiencing the first-ever transition of political parties, however, do people in this country really enjoy the democratic outcomes that have been established?
It seems that what Taiwan achieved in the last two decades was more of a "procedural democracy," rather than a "substantive democracy.
Embedded in this "hollow democracy" is the potential danger for political decay, which might undermine the efforts that the country has made over the past years.
Taiwan was lucky enough to survive the Asian financial crisis of 1997. The then-ruling KMT attributed a lot of the country's success to its own crisis management skills.
Nevertheless, what was revealed from the crisis was not just how the government would react to such a huge economic shock, but also inherent institutional problems.
The experiences of countries such as South Korea and Indonesia showed it was mainly "cronyism" -- the connection between government and business, be it conglomerates or organized crime -- that constituted the Achilles heel of countries that suffered during the economic disaster.
The bad news is that Taiwan will continue to move toward taking a similar path to the one that those countries were on, if the administration of Chen Shiu-bian
In Taiwan, the degree of social mobilization and the expansion of political participation has been high, especially since the lifting of martial law and the debut of open competition between political parties. However, the rates of political organization and institutionalization are relatively low. The result is a potential for political instability and disorder.
Even though the reform-minded Chen has taken over the presidency, "black gold" politics and government inefficiency have remained major concerns of the public. Reports released by some international risk-assessment companies all point to the fact that corruption and government inefficiency constitute the most important concerns of foreign investors in Taiwan.
The primary problem of politics and economics in Taiwan, therefore, is the lag in the development of institutions and the rule of law following rapid social and economic change.
Why has democratization in Taiwan bred corruption? First, democratization has created new sources of wealth and power whose relation to politics is undefined by the dominant traditional norms of society and who are not yet accepted as modern norms by the dominant groups within society.
Second, corruption in Taiwan's democratic transition is also related to the KMT's incorporation of these newly powerful groups and the efforts of these groups to make themselves effective within the political sphere.
What was responsible for this potential for crisis and instability? The answer is rapid social change and the rapid mobilization of new groups into politics, coupled with the slow development of political institutions.
The KMT's belief was that economic development would promote social stability while social development would promote political stability. And these two ideas constituted the base for the KMT's long rule.
Nevertheless, economic development and political stability are two independent goals, and progress toward one is not necessarily connected with progress toward the other. In some instances, economic development programs may promote political stability; in other instances they may seriously undermine it.
This potential political decay, in most cases, is sidelined by other elements, such as independence-unification debates and ethnic disputes, and has become a real threat to Taiwan's political and economic system.
Political democratization involves the process of rationalizing authority -- replacing a large number of traditional, religious and ethnic political authorities by a single secular, national political authority. It also includes differentiating new political functions and developing specialized structures to perform those functions. It entails increased participation in politics by social groups throughout society, too. But instead of this, there has frequently been a decay of the administrative organizations inherited from the authoritarian or totalitarian era and a weakening and disruption of the political organizations developed during the struggle for democracy.
Social mobilization increases aspirations. Economic development increases the capacity of a society to satisfy those aspirations and therefore tends to reduce social frustrations and consequent political instability.
Social mobilization is much more destabilizing than economic development. The gap between these two forms of change
illustrates the need for opportunities for social and economic mobility and adaptable political institutions.
Political participation becomes the road for advancement of the socially mobilized individual. Social frustration leads to demands on the government and the expansion of political participation to enforce those demands.
The political backwardness of the country in terms of political institutionalization, however, makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the demands upon the government to be expressed through legitimate channels. Hence the sharp increase in political participation has given rise to political instability.
Although Taiwan has undergone a peaceful transition of power, in the absence of strong and adaptable political institutions, such increases in participation also mean the accumulation of instability and underground business, such as corruption and bribery. The direct product is the rise of black gold politics and members of organized crime taking political office. Legislators with criminal records and backgrounds in organized crime are clear examples.
In conclusion, political democratization and social mobilization tend to produce political decay unless steps are taken to moderate or to restrict the impact on political consciousness and political involvement.
While the government continues to talk about how to continue further reforms or build up an "advanced democracy" in Taiwan, what they should bear in mind instead is how to keep Taiwan from moving toward political decay.
Liu Kuan-teh is a political commentator based in Taipei.
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
RSS