Today Taiwan faces its biggest test for democracy, going to the polls under the shock of yesterday's assassination attempt on President Chen Shui-bian (
Yesterday's attack on the incumbent president is unfortunately not the first time that a democratic election and referendum has been seriously disturbed by a violent attack: just a week ago, terrorists targeted the Spanish capital of Madrid, killing more than 200 citizens. Late last year, a man murdered Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh a few days before the country's decisive referendum to join the EU's monetary union. Yesterday, it was Taiwan's turn, shocking a whole nation and putting today's important ballot decisions in question. However, the only right answer is to support democracy wholeheartedly by taking part in today's election and referendum.
Having said that, it is not our role to endorse any available choice in the presidential race and the proposed issues in the referendum. We are, however, very concerned about the conduct of these first nationwide referendums in Taiwan. A failure could be a burden to any further democratization in both Taiwan and South-East Asia.
ILLUSTRATION MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
In this article, we explain why we find it inappropriate to call this referendum "illegal" and to boycott it. We also want to make the case for developing the citizens' political power by improving the law.
Indeed, the world will be watching when the Taiwanese go to the polling stations today. After having developed free and fair elections procedures, Taiwan is now proceeding to the next step, which is giving the opportunity to the people to vote on an issue. This is in line with a recent annual report of the UN Development Program, in which UN experts described the democratization of societies as one of the most important positive trends in the world, and at the same time, defined the further democratization of democracy as the greatest challenge of our time.
As they state, "True democratization means more than elections. People's dignity requires that they be free -- and able -- to participate in the formation and stewardship of the rules and institutions that govern them." Thus even the UN is moving towards direct democracy as a complement to indirect democracy.
This is neither a silly idealistic notion, nor the hobbyhorse of a small group of out-of-touch fantasists. It has shown itself to be, on the contrary, an extremely practical idea.
For example, last year, almost 10,000 referendums were recorded in US communities alone, and since the introduction of local referendums in the southern German state of Bavaria in 1995, there have been more than 1,000 popular ballots.
Direct democracy underscores Jean Jacques Rousseau's idea, which was as simple as can be imagined: People need laws to govern public life, and if everyone is involved in drawing up those laws, then in the final analysis, everyone only has to obey himself or herself. The result is self-regulation instead of the dominance of some by others. This utopian dream of yesterday is more and more becoming the reality of today.
To be sure, not too long ago only a minority of the world's population was living in countries with basic democratic rights. Thus in 1980, only 46 percent of the world's population, in 54 countries, enjoyed the benefits of democracy. But today, more than two-thirds of people -- 68 percent in 129 countries -- belong to the democratic world, including the 23 million Taiwanese.
The first constitutional referendum ever took place in 1639, in the then-independent US state of Connecticut. It was followed by similar referendums in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
In Europe, it was the French who took up this American impulse: In August 1793, 6 million French voters were asked to decide on a new democratic national constitution (the Montagnard Constitution). Almost 90 percent of them voted in favor of the revolutionary new rules, which included the right of 10 percent of the electorate to demand a referendum. But the French Revolution spawned the Reign of Terror, and the French continue to have little regard for direct democracy.
The idea of popular rights found fertile ground not in France but in Switzerland and in many of the states of the US. The most important phase of development of Swiss direct democracy occurred in the second half of the 19th century, while initiatives and referendums became established in the Western US around the beginning of the 20th century.
After World War II, the instruments of direct democracy became important in many other countries of the world -- in Italy, Australia, South Africa and Mexico, for example. Over the last 200 years, 1,352 national referendums have been held worldwide -- almost half of them in the last 15 years. Since 1991, the number of national referendums has doubled. Of the 497 documented national referendums worldwide between 1991 and the beginning of this year, 83 were in the Americas, 54 in Africa, 30 in Asia and 30 in Oceania. By far the largest number -- 301 -- was in Europe. In the preceding decade, the total was only 129.
Two developments in particular highlight this clear trend toward more directness in democracy.
First, the democratic revolutions in Eastern Europe led to no less than 27 new constitutions, most of which were approved by the people through referendums.
Second, the acceleration of integration within the EU opened the floodgates to a wave of direct democracy with transnational implications: 31 of the 41 national referendums in Europe and about Europe have happened since 1992.
People all over the world are thus going for more democracy, and that is especially true for certain subjects. Across the world, referendums are being held on an enormous range of issues: the growth of the state, constitutions, road-building projects, moral issues, town planning, taxes and so forth. However, the quality of direct democracy is not determined by the number of referendums, but by the way referendums come about and by the design of the relevant procedures and majority requirements. Based on these criteria, many countries are still lagging far behind.
The future of direct democracy across the world depends on the free expression and fair use of citizens' rights. By passing the Referendum Law (
They may deem the referendum politically unwelcome on the basis of the argument that it interferes with the parallel presidential election, but in our assessment, Article 17 of the law (which gives the head of state the right to call for defensive referendums) is clearly not illegal.
Thus, it is shortsighted to boycott the vote because abstaining from voting will not damage anyone's political rivals but rather the referendum tool itself.
The Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe has assessed hundreds of referendums during the last decade and we have found out that the following key elements are critical to free and fair referendums:
First, there must be no minimum turnout quorums such as the law requires, because this allows non-voting to become a tactical weapon to kill the referendum instrument and process. Such quorums were introduced in the Weimar Republic and did not help in the deepening of democracy. As in Taiwan, the 50-percent quorum is in use in Italy and other European countries. How bad can it be? See for example how Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi requests on a regular basis that his voters boycott citizen-initiated referendums!
Second, a referendum introduced by the head of state, the government or the parliament is called a plebiscite and is not the most democratic form of referendum. Very often, as in Taiwan, the legitimacy of such a plebiscite is heavily contested by the opposition. This in turn infringes upon the rights of the people to direct democracy. Thus the most important thing is to strengthen the right of the citizens themselves to launch a popular initiative on all issues, while the mechanism is also made available to the legislature.
Third, the quality of the debate is decisive for the quality of the decision on an issue. For this reason special care must be given to the referendum campaign. Both sides must obtain the same space and time in the media, while the government's role in the public debate must be clearly defined.
For major issues like Taiwan's relations to China it is recommended to not link elections and referendums, as their is an obvious risk -- as we clearly can see -- to mix up the choice of a person with the decision on an issue.
Many reforms which are sold to citizens as participatory or direct democracy only reveal their true character when they are measured against the requirements above. Taiwan's Referendum Law only partly meets these criteria. However, due to the very special situation of the country, it is a step toward more democracy. The next important step will be a fair completion of the referendum campaign and the voting itself, as well as a well-organized follow-up of the citizens' decisions today..
The Taiwanese should be allowed to choose more democracy free of threats from outside and inside actors. Yesterday's shocking attack should not prevent its attempts to deepen its young democracy. Indeed, Taiwan can become Asia's model for a developed and mature democracy. Today's first nationwide referendum is just the starting point for a new phase in Taiwan's history of democracy. The next steps will be popular initiatives on various issues, put to the ballot by the citizens themselves.
Bruno Kaufmann is president of the Initiative & Referendum Institute Europe in Amsterdam. Theo Schiller is professor of political science in Marburg, Germany and is a member of the IRI-Advisory Board.
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