Max Weber is one of the most influential public intellectuals of the 20th century. His lecture “Politics as a Vocation,” delivered in 1919 and published in Max Weber’s Complete Writings on Academic and Political Vocations, examines the ethical responsibilities or what some might call the moral choices made by political leaders and public figures.
Weber said that there are three pre-eminent qualities that are decisive for a politician: passion, a feeling of responsibility and a sense of proportion.
Devotion to politics arises from and is sustained by passion. That means passion in the sense of matter-of-factness, of passionate devotion to a “cause.” It is not passion in the sense of “sterile excitation.” A crucial quality of a politician is the ability to exercise self-restraint.
Political actions involve not only convictions and values, but also consequences that could follow, including influences on others and the responsibilities they should bear.
Weber defined and elaborated the antithesis between the ethics of responsibility and the ethics of conviction. He said the latter is in the sense of self-righteousness that is fundamentally different from and irreconcilably opposed to the former. In other words, that is a realist approach to morality, striking a balance between values and reality.
Weber said those who see politics as a vocation should not only consider moral principles, but should also evaluate restraints and long-term consequences in reality when they negotiate.
To satisfy those two conditions, the most decisive psychological quality of a politician is their sense of proportion — the ability to let realities work upon themselves with inner concentration and calmness. That is their distance to things and others which is to forge warm passion and a cool sense of proportion together. Weber said that politics is made with the head, not with other parts of the body or spirit.
Weber’s teachings apply to the current recall movement.
The current struggles initiated by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party is damaging the whole country and the rights of Taiwanese. The situation would deteriorate if nothing is done to stop them.
Although the Democratic Progressive Party, the “Bluebird movement,” intellectuals and those affected by the opposition parties’ controversial amendments are furious, most people remain indifferent.
Recalling elected officials is a civil right, which is an issue that the government and the ruling party do not have any say in. However, those who are the most powerful bear the consequences. The battlefield is brutal.
The opposition parties would definitely fight back and wage a full-fledged war. The blame would be shifted to the pan-green camp. The war would last for another six months. What would the moderate voters who swing between the green camp and the blue camp think?
If successful, the recall movement would have a deterrent effect or, on the other hand, it could backfire. The political turmoil could intensify in the coming three years, which would make reconciliation difficult.
Therefore, people should remain calm to make observations and judgements, but that does not mean they should turn a blind eye to the situation or to pour cold water on the issue.
Their mission is to let people understand how this could damage the country and harm people’s rights. Taiwanese should also get to grips with public opinion.
The best option would be to precisely recall the most unpopular legislators, because the goal is to promote the movement and to yield an unexpectedly good result.
Lee Wen-chung is a former legislator.
Translated by Fion Khan
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) has said that the armed forces must reach a high level of combat readiness by 2027. That date was not simply picked out of a hat. It has been bandied around since 2021, and was mentioned most recently by US Senator John Cornyn during a question to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday. It first surfaced during a hearing in the US in 2021, when then-US Navy admiral Philip Davidson, who was head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said: “The threat [of military