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
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS