With less than two weeks to the presidential election, now is a good time to revisit an assessment by political scientist Pei Minxin (裴敏欣) of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace before the 2004 election.
Pei voiced concern that Taiwan might become an illiberal democracy as a result of political infighting and ethnic conflict and lose international support.
Four years have passed and the division of authority in Taiwan's democratic politics appears to have clear differences to Pei's predictions. Confronted with the pan-blue camp's recapturing of an absolute majority in the legislature, the pan-green camp has warned strongly against the return to single-party rule and advocated the continuance of a political party "for the Taiwanese."
As one of the countries that democratized during the third wave of democratization, we should give careful consideration to the political risks inherent in the slow and chaotic process of consolidating democracy.
Since 1996, the World Bank has compiled the Worldwide Governance Indicators for 212 countries or territories. The indicators are: "Voice and Accountability," "Political Stability and Absence of Violence," "Government Effectiveness," "Regulatory Quality," "Rule of Law" and "Control of Corruption."
Compared with 1996, Taiwan has seen a sharp drop in its rankings in control of corruption and political stability. Its performance in terms of rule of law, accountability and regulatory quality also showed signs of regression. The country only rated well in government effectiveness.
The decline in control of corruption and political stability represents increasing political risk. This not only results in obstruction and possible damage to the economy in terms of foreign investment, but also loss of public confidence in the effectiveness and superiority of the democratic system. This is reflected in several aspects.
First, drastic changes in administrative policies: for instance, the building of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. Policy flip-flopping has caused enormous losses in real economic value and setbacks to rational debate.
Second, ethnic issues continue to be employed as a tactic and mobilizing strategy by politicians to achieve their ends. Take the discussion of the 228 Incident for example: Reflection on its seriousness is dominated by the rise and fall of political forces and has resulted in missed opportunities to effect transitional justice.
Third, government wavering on cross-strait relations has obstructed development of Taiwan's politics and economy. Take the three links and the recognition of Chinese educational qualifications, for instance: a conservative and passive cross-strait policy has only given people a vague or erroneous perception of China's rise and development. The government lags behind the public's vision, but the public is forced to sustain the results of erroneous political decisions.
Taiwan is a newly developed democracy. Subjectively, it would be highly unlikely for the Taiwanese public to accept another authoritarian regime or dictatorial politics. Yet corruption and the failure of the rule of law could seriously hurt public confidence in the democratic system.
We should cast our vote for a president who can facilitate the consolidation of democracy and is capable of effectively lowering political risk. This president will not be the "leader" of Taiwan-ese democracy, but rather a law-abiding and honest citizen who has the vision and is willing to use the authority granted to him through the system to achieve it.
Jackson Yeh is a research assistant at the Center for Contemporary China at National Tsing Hua University.
TRANSLATED BY ANGELA HONG
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