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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS