The third wave of democratization, a concept popularized by US political scientist Samuel Huntington in 1974, culminated with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Francis Fukuyama, another political scientist, wrote in his 1992 book entitled The End of History and the Last Man, based on his 1989 essay The End of History?, that Western liberal democracy and capitalism may be the “end of history” in the sense that they are the final form of government, because there is simply no better system of government to replace it.
However, after the wave of democratization reached its apex in the 1990s, democracy around the world now appears to be retreating and this is a threat that must be taken seriously.
First of all, democracy is retreating in many emerging democracies as electoral irregularities, serious corruption, government incompetence, centralization of power and religious and ethnic confrontation are paralyzing the operation of their democratic mechanisms.
Next, although the Soviet Union passed into history years ago, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime is still around. Over the past 20 years, it has learned how to use technology to better control its people. It has also applied the operative logic of Western capitalism and globalization to the use of its massive land area and labor force to grow stronger.
This “Chinese model” has been imitated by many other authoritarian regimes. The logic that is intended to lead to the development of a harmonious social and economic development could be seen as the CCP’s ideology for the 21st century, used to brainwash the Chinese people to maintain the legitimacy of its rule. This is also the main reason why the “Jasmine Revolution” cannot spread to China.
However, a closer look at the Jasmine Revolution reveals that it is a materialistic one based on public anger and dissatisfaction with living standard-related issues, such as unemployment, commodity prices and inflation, and not on spiritual or political concerns. It is thus difficult to say that what has happened in Tunisia and Egypt is essentially democratic revolutions. In addition, while the revolutions there may have been successful, it is still too early to say whether it will result in a smoothly operating democracy. It is simply too optimistic to say that this is the beginning of a fourth wave of democratization.
Compared with the Jasmine Revolution, the third wave of democratization rolled into Taiwan just as its economy was taking off and the public was making far-reaching demands for political participation and reform. This gave the changes an essentially ideological aspect as the public began to see themselves as masters of their country. In contrast with the bloody Jasmine Revolution, Taiwan’s was quiet and peaceful, which is both rare and very valuable. Still, we must be cautious, as Taiwan, just like many of the other democracies that emerged during the third wave of democratization, is now facing the risk of democratic regression.
Margot Chen is a research fellow at Taiwan Advocates.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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.
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
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