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.
After more than a year of review, the National Security Bureau on Monday said it has completed a sweeping declassification of political archives from the Martial Law period, transferring the full collection to the National Archives Administration under the National Development Council. The move marks another significant step in Taiwan’s long journey toward transitional justice. The newly opened files span the architecture of authoritarian control: internal security and loyalty investigations, intelligence and counterintelligence operations, exit and entry controls, overseas surveillance of Taiwan independence activists, and case materials related to sedition and rebellion charges. For academics of Taiwan’s White Terror era —
On Feb. 7, the New York Times ran a column by Nicholas Kristof (“What if the valedictorians were America’s cool kids?”) that blindly and lavishly praised education in Taiwan and in Asia more broadly. We are used to this kind of Orientalist admiration for what is, at the end of the day, paradoxically very Anglo-centered. They could have praised Europeans for valuing education, too, but one rarely sees an American praising Europe, right? It immediately made me think of something I have observed. If Taiwanese education looks so wonderful through the eyes of the archetypal expat, gazing from an ivory tower, how
China has apparently emerged as one of the clearest and most predictable beneficiaries of US President Donald Trump’s “America First” and “Make America Great Again” approach. Many countries are scrambling to defend their interests and reputation regarding an increasingly unpredictable and self-seeking US. There is a growing consensus among foreign policy pundits that the world has already entered the beginning of the end of Pax Americana, the US-led international order. Consequently, a number of countries are reversing their foreign policy preferences. The result has been an accelerating turn toward China as an alternative economic partner, with Beijing hosting Western leaders, albeit
After 37 US lawmakers wrote to express concern over legislators’ stalling of critical budgets, Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) pledged to make the Executive Yuan’s proposed NT$1.25 trillion (US$39.7 billion) special defense budget a top priority for legislative review. On Tuesday, it was finally listed on the legislator’s plenary agenda for Friday next week. The special defense budget was proposed by President William Lai’s (賴清德) administration in November last year to enhance the nation’s defense capabilities against external threats from China. However, the legislature, dominated by the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), repeatedly blocked its review. The
RSS