Less than a month into William Lai’s (賴清德) presidency, domestic politics saw dramatic turmoil over the legislature’s new reforms that would grant it expanded powers to investigate and question, with punitive force behind it. The controversial amendments are being contested for several reasons. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) says it would seek a ruling from the Constitutional Court on the constitutionality of the bills.
The Constitutional Court is likely to be where the next battle over the reforms would be fought. Academia Sinica law institute research professor Su Yen-tu (蘇彥圖) warned against attempts to undermine the authority and trust in the grand justices, adding that it is a common tactic from the playbook of “authoritarian populists”: attacking independent or neutral institutions such as the media and the judiciary to exacerbate political polarization. As all of the serving grand justices were nominated by former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), it would be an easy vector of attack for the opposition to label them as biased.
In recent years, the populists’ challenge to democratic systems has been a popular trend in the study of democracy. Charismatic leaders such as former US president Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi have shown how vulnerable democracies can be in the face of their divisive politics. Despite their diverging interests and political ideologies, populists share a few key defining traits.
They are “anti-establishment” and campaign against perceived corrupt “political elites.” They are illiberal in that they demand “efficiency” in their pursuit of optically grand political actions, often disregarding essential democratic principles and norms. Populists seek to centralize power through institutional reforms and erode accountabilities by weakening independent watchdogs, Su said.
The key figures that pushed for the legislative amendments illustrated the two paths populist leaders would take.
First, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus leader Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) announced the KMT’s intention to form a special investigation unit targeting “DPP government corruption” right after the passage of the amendments. All while claiming indignantly that his prior criminal conviction for corruption was politically motivated. A framing that puts the ruling DPP into the titular role of the “corrupt elites” in a typical populist fashion.
Second, Taiwan People’s Party caucus leader Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) bashed a reputable international megazine, The Economist, poisoning the well of legitimate potential concerns with the reforms raised by the magazne. He also said on Facebook that the DPP-leaning Liberty Times (sister paper of the Taipei Times) was “Taiwan’s People’s Daily.”
When asked about a potential unfavorable Constitutional Court ruling, Huang took a more moderate position. However, although advocating for restraint, he also said that there could be a potential conflict between a supposed “will of the people” and the court.
These populist-style narratives might seem innocuous, but they sow the seeds of hyperpolarization and social distrust. Strong-arming legislation further added to the issue as it shows a lack of respect for the legislative minority that represents just under half of the population.
Beyond the legislature, this intensive political clash is being fought in new online spaces. The online discourse was dominated by live streams and podcasts from pundits and politicians. The lawmakers themselves streamed constantly during the legislative proceedings, providing commentaries and analysis of their own.
This trend presented a highly sensationalized image of politics built around live reaction and instant transmission. This allowed politicians such as Huang to assert their narrative directly without having to go through slower traditional media. Although Huang drew the line at attacking the Constitutional Court, his KMT counterparts might not show the same restraint.
While counter-narratives by the DPP and its supporters are relevant, this trend still weakens trust in the media. Media outlets are increasingly being written off as “partisan flanks.” Should the same fate befall the Constitutional Court, it would no longer be a “red flag” warning us of a populist assault, but a dangerous political reality Taiwan’s young democratic system must face.
Lee Chi-en is pursuing a master’s degree in International Studies at National Chengchi University. His research focuses on democratic backsliding and legislative politics. He was also a Ministry of Foreign Affairs youth ambassador in 2019.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
A report by the US-based Jamestown Foundation on Tuesday last week warned that China is operating illegal oil drilling inside Taiwan’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Taiwan-controlled Pratas Island (Dongsha, 東沙群島), marking a sharp escalation in Beijing’s “gray zone” tactics. The report said that, starting in July, state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp installed 12 permanent or semi-permanent oil rig structures and dozens of associated ships deep inside Taiwan’s EEZ about 48km from the restricted waters of Pratas Island in the northeast of the South China Sea, islands that are home to a Taiwanese garrison. The rigs not only typify
RSS