Some time has passed since the Sunflower movement protests — which begun when a student-led group of protesters occupied the chamber of the Legislative Yuan on March 18 — have drawn to a close. Now that the excitement is over, it may be a bit easier for people to consider calmly the various aspects of the way protest movements have developed in this country.
Over the past few years, Taiwan has seen a never-ending series of protest movements, be they big or small in terms of participants. Protest has become a typical state of affairs in the nation and serves as an emotional outlet. Can a new force, or a new civic movement, come into being — one that transcends political parties and social classes and is pure, selfless, peaceful and rational? While many people would like to see that happen, it is by no means a certainty.
Economic wealth is becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a minority, while the country’s future is in the hands of a bunch of politicians whose salient characteristics are their shortsightedness and ideological bias.
Looking no further than the next election, they are only concerned with pleasing their core supporters.
Almost every clash between purportedly different political approaches is just another form of infighting between the pan-blues and pan-greens, or a bartering of interests between the two sides. Incapable of devoting themselves to basic constructive reform, politicians have let the nation slide into stagnation and even regression.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his government might promise in all sincerity that they are striving for the prosperity of the nation, but their performance has earned them no plaudits. People are largely subject to psychological perceptions and infectious emotions. For most people, the central question is not whether a government’s reforms can make society fairer and more equal, but whether the fairness and equality that they seek can give the public a sense of belonging, cohesion and group consciousness.
Society is filled with distrust and people feel very insecure about what the future has in store for them. Most people are bogged down in “postmodern collective anxiety.” Many think that life is unfair and they feel uneasy, frustrated and disheartened. It is easy for them to find fault, but not to find a piece of driftwood that they can use to stay afloat.
When people take part in social movements that focus on freedom and resistance, it can give them a sense of liberation, like Prometheus unbound, and allows them to feel they are the masters of their own fates. For others, it is a matter of following the latest fashion — the herd mentality — in a search for social recognition and self-realization.
Protest is not purely a reaction against government policy. It gives people a new understanding of society, culture and history. Social movements are not merely fashions. They can shape the direction and environment of future political developments and spur them on, while inspiring political ideas, organizations and trends.
However, one thing that Taiwan may have in common with other new democracies is that its political movements tend to lack independence and are incapable of attracting a diversity of civic forces from across the spectrum of society. These factors prevent them from effectively monitoring possible abuses of power by the government and political parties or from compelling leaders to carry out needed reforms.
One reason for this is that the nation’s particular political environment makes it easy for people involved in social movements to wear the colors of the pan-blue or pan-green camps. Then, they tend to specialize in self-criticism and go quiet when confronted by the opposition. They fail to confront those in power in a consistent manner. This turns protests into a mere extension of political infighting, while social movements become factions of political parties.
The second reason is that some activists, while emphasizing a peaceful and rational approach, refuse to engage in open dialogue.
They only tolerate political and cultural discourse from within their own groups. This is a kind of ideological imperialism and many cannot understand why activists of this kind think that only the views they express and their own opinions can be right and everyone else must be wrong.
Over the past couple of decades, infighting between the pan-blue and pan-green camps has brought Taiwan to its knees, almost to the point of paralysis.
Most people are sick and tired of the fighting, but cannot get away from it. When society is so stricken by depression and anxiety, there is an urgent need for a genuinely popular force to appear in the limelight.
Sad to say, the notion of “the people” has been used and abused so much that it has lost its essential meaning. It has become an abstract concept that is open to manipulation in attempts to mold or please public opinion. Consequently, when it is used as a call to join a struggle, it can sound very dissonant.
Civic movements must strive to escape from the characteristics that stem from their past dependence on political parties and develop more sophisticated and comprehensive patterns of behavior.
At the same time, they must uphold the possibility of dialogue, as befits a democratic society. This openness would make the world more tolerant and diverse and make it possible for the centrist forces that exist among Taiwanese to converge and come to the fore.
Chiou Tian-juh is a professor of social psychology at Shih Hsin University.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS