Some years ago, I spent time in Taiwan as a student and then as a professor at a local university. Residents I met at that time were fascinated with the US and frequently asked me about democracy in the US, which I was happy to talk about.
In 1980, when there was an important election pending in Taiwan, I was asked to join an election observer team to discuss the events of the day and suggest what Taiwan should do to ensure a fair, honest and meaningful election. Local and foreign academics joined the group. We also met some American diplomats who shared their thoughts.
The first idea expressed by local academics was that there should be no voting machines. They were fearful that they could be rigged. In the US at the time, voting machines were a part of most elections and I thought some American academics might argue in favor of them. That did not happen.
The next issues we talked about were the ballot boxes, the rooms where the balloting was to take place and the processes.
I was pleased to learn that the ballot boxes were translucent so that anyone watching could see that a ballot went into the box and stayed there, but nobody could see whom the voter cast a ballot for.
Officials were there to observe, and I was told that if a voter opened their ballot to let anyone see, it would be invalidated. There was concern that the voter might have been paid to vote for a candidate and would show his ballot to prove that they had done that.
The room where the voting was done had windows so that people could watch the procedures from outside. And many did. I did too.
Voters presented their national ID card before they cast their ballot. It was marked so that the voter could not vote multiple times.
Rather than using a voter registration system, the household registration system was used to keep a record of qualified voters. It had been used for many years and was scrupulously kept. So was the national ID card system.
The Central Election Commission was created that year, an independent, non-partisan organization, to oversee elections and make sure they were orderly and fair.
When the voting time ended, officials removed the ballots in the view of observers, showed each ballot, and then told a counter the result. The latter wrote on the wall or a blackboard the candidates’ name and their vote tally for everyone to see. When the counting was done, they telephoned the results to the election headquarters for a final tally. That was done on television for people to watch.
I was very impressed by the process. I was convinced it was transparent and honest. I thought at the time that everything possible was done to make sure there was no tampering.
The academics and some US and Taiwanese officials cited other regulations and procedures that accompanied the voting and made some suggestions.
Some people in our group broached the idea of a longer voting period, perhaps several days. Some supported the idea of absentee voting to eliminate the cost of transportation to one’s hometown to cast a ballot — which was the rule.
It was a general consensus that the current rules would better ensure an honest election. The Taiwanese academics said that voters should accept some inconvenience to guarantee that Taiwan’s budding democracy worked well.
As time passed and there were more elections, the majority of the processes used in that election were retained. Most thought that they preserved voting integrity and should not be changed.
That is not to say election campaigns did not progress. In 1986, Taiwanese had their first two-party election. Party competition made Taiwan’s democracy more real.
In 1996, Taiwan held its first direct presidential and vice-presidential election. Previously, the now-defunct National Assembly voted for candidates of these offices. This change was consequential.
In 2000, Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), the candidate of the opposition Democratic Progressive Party, won the presidency. It was the first rotation of ruling parties. This was another important step in consolidating Taiwan’s democracy.
Fast forward to two decades into the new century and polls of Taiwanese voters asking about their political system showed they overwhelmingly supported democracy and believed Taiwan was a democracy. They were proud of that. The most cynical said that democracy was a messy system. I heard one say that democracy was not a good system, but it was better than any alternative.
Broadening the discussion, it seemed that Taiwan had more to boast about than others regarding its election processes and the standing of its democracy, even its teacher — the US.
According to Liberty House, last year there had been 16 consecutive years of more nations experiencing a decline in liberty, an essential quality of democracy, than progress. The Arab spring had not produced democracies. In Africa five countries’ democracies had devolved since 2015. Autocrats abounded.
According to a study by the Economist Intelligence Unit, the US is now a “flawed democracy” — behind Spain, Costa Rica and Chile. It is worse than it was last year.
Others said that the core requirements for democracy to succeed and its important traits were not showing well in the US. The middle class in the US has been shrinking and it is evident this is still the situation, even more so.
The fair and unbiased media have vanished. News reporters are seen among the most dishonest and least-respected groups in society. A large number of people do not view the US’ legal system as unbiased or based on equality before the law. Furthermore, respect for those in charge of education face similar criticism.
Thus, Taiwan’s democracy stands out at home and elsewhere, including the US, as a unique model of success to be respected and admired.
Does anyone dare say the pupil has bested the teacher?
John Copper is a Stanley J. Buckman professor emeritus of international studies at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee. He is the author of more than 35 books on Taiwan and US-China-Taiwan policy.
There is a modern roadway stretching from central Hargeisa, the capital of Somaliland in the Horn of Africa, to the partially recognized state’s Egal International Airport. Emblazoned on a gold plaque marking the road’s inauguration in July last year, just below the flags of Somaliland and the Republic of China (ROC), is the road’s official name: “Taiwan Avenue.” The first phase of construction of the upgraded road, with new sidewalks and a modern drainage system to reduce flooding, was 70 percent funded by Taipei, which contributed US$1.85 million. That is a relatively modest sum for the effect on international perception, and
At the end of last year, a diplomatic development with consequences reaching well beyond the regional level emerged. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared Israel’s recognition of Somaliland as a sovereign state, paving the way for political, economic and strategic cooperation with the African nation. The diplomatic breakthrough yields, above all, substantial and tangible benefits for the two countries, enhancing Somaliland’s international posture, with a state prepared to champion its bid for broader legitimacy. With Israel’s support, Somaliland might also benefit from the expertise of Israeli companies in fields such as mineral exploration and water management, as underscored by Israeli Minister of
When former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) first took office in 2016, she set ambitious goals for remaking the energy mix in Taiwan. At the core of this effort was a significant expansion of the percentage of renewable energy generated to keep pace with growing domestic and global demands to reduce emissions. This effort met with broad bipartisan support as all three major parties placed expanding renewable energy at the center of their energy platforms. However, over the past several years partisanship has become a major headwind in realizing a set of energy goals that all three parties profess to want. Tsai
An elderly mother and her daughter were found dead in Kaohsiung after having not been seen for several days, discovered only when a foul odor began to spread and drew neighbors’ attention. There have been many similar cases, but it is particularly troubling that some of the victims were excluded from the social welfare safety net because they did not meet eligibility criteria. According to media reports, the middle-aged daughter had sought help from the local borough warden. Although the warden did step in, many services were unavailable without out-of-pocket payments due to issues with eligibility, leaving the warden’s hands
RSS