The recent “Jasmine Revolution” and the effect it has had on autocratic political systems has shown that forces are in place for a new wave of democracy and that these could erupt at any time. These recent events also show that this force has a way of reaching areas situated near each other. The Internet has become a new tool for disseminating information about democracy and this is something that traditional theories on democratization never foresaw. The middle class, new social movements and even opposition parties have all fallen into the background and have been replaced with a new form of mass communication that is more democratic and decentralized.
In the past, when nations in the developing world were planning political revolution, they first had to gain control of presidential offices, TV and radio stations and airports. Of these, TV stations were a crucial factor in determining whether a revolution would succeed. In the process of consolidating their power, TV stations were a tool used by authoritarian political systems to brainwash society. In the now democratized Taiwan, we can still see remnants of such a past. The recent Jasmine Revolution has proved the possibility of a bottom-up way of disseminating information about democracy.
This also shows that the strength of mainstream media in controlling politics is weakening and how the communicative and dissemination forces of new forms of media like Facebook and YouTube are growing. This explains how politicians now have no choice but to use such media, as well as providing a test of whether politicians can get used to the “wilder” side of democracy that these forms of media embody.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) has had no choice but to go online and conduct discussions with netizens, and we have seen President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) publicizing how he has set up a Facebook account. They have done this because they have seen that new media forms are a tipping point for politicians. This shows us the great power new forms of media possess and how traditional methods of securing power are no longer adequate. Those in power are using such media not just to win people over, but because these are the new rules dictated by new media and the way these will gradually become the new battleground for elections.
The few altercations that have happened in China in their own chapter of the Jasmine Revolution only involved small numbers of protesters. However, these incidents caused China’s police and reporters from traditional media outlets to fight and highlighted how new media forms can disseminate information about democracy. This changed the originally pessimistic views of other countries that believed China’s economic development was going to stop the social force of the Jasmine Revolution there. The Jasmine Revolution in China has shown how new media have been spreading like wildfire and how they have proven themselves to be even more unpredictable and harder to control than members of Falun Gong.
Ma claims to have tens of thousands of fans on Facebook, as many as pop stars and other celebrities. However, his “popularity” was recently overshadowed by a YouTube video clip of plainclothes police who surrounded Taiwanese university students during a protest against the visit of China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) to Taiwan. This shows how political leaders will be exposed if they fail to truly grasp the “wilder” side of democracy and merely spend money trying to get new media to work for them.
Hsu Yung-ming is an assistant research fellow at the Sun Yat-sen Institute for Social Sciences and Philosophy at Academia Sinica.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
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