The referendum, at first considered an attempt by President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) to attract voter support, failed in the end because less than 50 percent of voters chose to participate in the vote.
Although the Taiwanese people have long dreamed about holding a referendum, the first national referendum failed, before the eyes of the whole world. The reasons for this failure were that some people suspected a link between the referendum, independence and self-determination; that the dispute over the legality of the referendum created public opposition to it and that the referendum questions really weren't very exciting.
Chen's announcement immediately after the legislature passed the Referendum Law (公民投票法) last November that he would hold a defensive referendum together with the presidential election became a constant source of conflict. Apart from the confusion and conflict in the months leading up to the referendum, what other effects has the referendum had on society? Has it really promoted a deepening of democracy?
The best way to answer these questions is to look at the different positive and negative opinions and the further debate incited by these opinions.
There are several different opinions in support of the referendum. First, from the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) perspective, it helps political mobilization. Second, it helps consolidate a collective public awareness. Third, it can be used to demonstrate the power of Taiwan as a whole to the international community and as a means to firmly establish Taiwan's international position and guarantee its national security. Fourth, it helps create space for public participation in the debate on public issues, thereby creating a bottom-up democratic and participatory decisionmaking process as well as a true deepening of democracy.
The doubts concerning the referendum can be roughly divided into several different aspects. First, the short-term motive for the referendum was to attract voter support, thereby diminishing the highest of democratic rights into an appendix to a presidential election. Second, the long-term motive was to pave the way for a referendum on independence, which would attract pressure from China and the international community and create confrontation over national identification and ethnicity domestically. Third, issues concerning the legality of the referendum. Fourth and most crucial, are the doubts arising out of considerations regarding the relationship between political power and society in a sovereign nation, ie, the social democracy could have been controlled by the state to influence referendum performance.
It is not difficult to see how the referendum involves a wide range of aspects, from the most realistic political mobilization, international relations, constitutional and legal issues, the fundamental character of democratic constitutional politics and consolidating social-emotional awareness, to the possibility of implementing social democracy. All these complex issues have appeared amid the conflict over the referendum.
The first setback for Chen in his push for a March 20 referendum was having to face international political pressure. The US and Japan, two countries important to Taiwan's national security, have aired doubts concerning the referendum, thus putting pressure on Taiwan. This is why the two questions finally presented by Chen were so neutral in character.
The referendum succeeded in consolidating a certain level of social-emotional awareness. One good example of this was the 228 Hand-in-Hand Rally, when over 2 million people joined hands to say "No" to China and "Yes" to Taiwan. But then the 313 rally also gathered almost 2 million people to say "No" to Chen, which is evidence that the use of national security and international status to consolidate the emotions of the people is not acceptable to everyone.
The issue that has engendered the most lively discussion has been the question of the legality of the referendum. Almost every aspect of the law has been discussed, but the debate has been restricted because neither law nor formal logic touches upon the more fundamental issues. Further exploration appears impossible since both the government and the opposition are unwilling to ask for a constitutional interpretation of the issue. However, this situation is bringing two positive results:
First, the public debate allows the public to gain a deeper understanding of the law. Second, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators have proposed an amendment to the Referendum Law aimed at restricting the president's right to initiate a referendum. Whether or not this is reasonable is a problematic issue, which at the very least will lead to further discussion.
The theory that the referendum deepens democracy is the referendum proponents' most forceful argument. Has the referendum process had this effect? An attempt at finding the answer in the televised debates between various well-known orators will end in disappointment. However, the public debate in the media regarding the legality of the referendum was one of the positive effects the issue has had. In addition, the first referendum question about strengthening national defense has indeed led to reflection on the arms race terror balance, as well as the question of whether anti-missile equipment is effective.
The dispute has also led to deeper reflection on whether the referendum will bring about a bottom-up process for public participation in decisionmaking, or, as sociologist Wu Jieh-min (
On the other hand, Chien Yung-xiang (
The failure of the referendum is evidence that an attempt to win public recognition using a top-down referendum model requires more cautious deliberation. But are bottom-up referendums a possibility in Taiwan? At least, public debate has entered a stage of deeper deliberation and debate. What now remains is a practical test.
Ku Er-teh is a freelance writer.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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