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.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS