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 conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS