Taiwan's electoral system has recently been the target of critical assessment, suggesting that it is in urgent need of reform. How-ever, there is no sign of a consensus in the foreseeable future about the scope and character of any changes that might take place. Several proposals have been tabled for discussion, but these have not addressed the underlying problem, namely the anachronistic single non-transferable vote (SNTV) system in multi-member constituencies that is used to elect representatives to the Legislative Yuan.
President Chen Shui-bian (
One of the many challenges facing the new Taiwan is the realization that democracy is about more than elections; it is as much about the quality of governance, as the quantity of opportunities to express a popular opinion through the ballot box. Extending the legislative term is a step in the right direction, for it will reduce the need for lawmakers to engage in campaigning for the next election as soon as they assume office. The permanent campaign is the scourge of modern representative democracies and does not make for rational, sensible government that must sometimes defy popular opinion to get things done.
On their own, however, these changes are cosmetic. Lengthening the term that legislators serve will not help offset the deep-rooted problems of corruption, vote-buying and pork-barrel faction-led politics that characterize local elections. Making the legislature smaller will help, for this means that constituencies will be bigger. This should, all things being equal, reduce the power of faction leaders and vote-brokers.
However, the solution to many of these problems is reform of the electoral system itself. SNTV devalues voter choice based on party preference, and instead encourages decisions based on other criteria to distinguish between candidates.
In Taiwan, one such criterion may be personal connection, or mobilization via patron-client relationships. In local-level elections especially, voters assign considerable value to personal contact between candidate and voter, and between voter and vote-broker, not least because such contact facilitates the declining practice of vote-buying.
Another proposal, mandatory voting, is unnecessary. The turnout rates in Taiwan's elections are remarkable and are the envy of more mature democracies, particularly given the frequency with which voters are expected to cast their ballots. However, voting is a civil right, not a duty, as Minister of the Interior Yu Cheng-hsien (
Mandatory voting will not solve any of Taiwan's present problems; if anything it will exacerbate popular dissatisfaction with the political system. Studies of countries that enforce voting have found that while turnout does increase, it does not resolve the deeper problems regarding the quality of political participation. Instead, it simply intensifies apathetic attitudes, encourages disinterest and lengthens the distance between politicians and voters. Aren't spoiled ballots as worthless as no ballot at all?
Doom and gloom merchants like to declare a crisis in representative government throughout the world. Voters, they say, are not taking the trouble to exercise their democratic rights and cast their ballot; and politicians are not doing enough to engage in a dialogue with the people and nurture their awareness that participation in the political process is meaningful and relevant. And yes, voter turnout is falling. In Britain, the 35 percent turnout at the recent local council elections was hailed by the media as a triumph, a stunning reversal of the indifference that is considered endemic to the political system!
Yet this attitude -- that the failure to vote is somehow wrong -- is nonsense. Contrary to the electoralism that afflicts Taiwan's political system, democracy is not just about voting the rascals in, and then voting them out again. Recent trends demonstrate that democracy is alive and well, and is flourishing among the very citizens denounced as uninterested in politics (normally, the younger voters).
Governments and political observers must realize that choosing not to vote can itself be a form of political participation, an expression of one's disappointment and frustration. Witness the worldwide protests that erupt every May 1, bringing together a veritable menagerie of people who ordinarily would not expect to associate with one another. Representing a variety of political causes and issues that have global relevance, these new social movements confirm that political participation can be meaningful. They do not need elections or even political parties to express their points of view. Isn't this what democracy is all about?
Gary Rawnsley is the director of the Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies at the School of Politics at the University of Nottingham, UK.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
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
RSS