The clearest signal sent by the presidential election is that mainstream opinion in Taiwan has changed. The pan-green camp's vote has jumped from 40 percent in 2000 to 50 percent this year, showing that a feeling of Taiwanese identity has expanded.
The Chinese Communist Party had always placed its hope in the people of Taiwan, but this election has shown that the Tai-wanese people are neither interested in nor willing to accept Beijing's policy of "one country, two systems." Mainstream opinion here is now heading in the opposite direction, away from unification. In other words, China's hopes for support from the Taiwanese have been dashed.
If Beijing and Washington were not convinced about this trend four years ago, then they should be now. They must deal with the reality of Taiwan. No matter how Beijing adjusts its policy, it is no longer possible to make "one country, two systems" the core of that policy.
The Taiwanese people should receive congratulations for this election, because their democracy is now able to stand up to the test of post-election conflict between political parties. When the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-People First Party (PFP) alliance refused to admit defeat, attempting to launch a mass movement, the whole world was watching to see if Taiwan's democracy would remain stable.
The fact is, despite the confrontation we see at the moment, the two camps have agreed to accept the results of a recount and resolve the conflict by legal means. With this, a political struggle has, in the end, returned to the constitutional framework. This is a victory for Taiwan's democracy, and a vindication of its democratic ideology.
Compared to the notorious 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations in Beijing, during which the Chinese Communist Party shot its own civilians and students, the relatively peaceful protests of the Taiwanese people have highlighted the democratic system's function of stabilizing society. This is a source of inspiration and encouragement to the Chinese people who thirst for democracy. Massive, violent conflict is unlikely to occur in a real democratic society, and Taiwan is the best example of this.
China has misread Taiwan's situation for a long time in two ways. First, Beijing misjudged mainstream public opinion, believing that the people's resistance to unification had merely been aroused by a minor pro-independence element, rather than an appeal from within the greater body of the people. Second, Beijing miscalculated by thinking it was able to stop a tectonic shift in mainstream opinion by issuing threats.
China is also placing hope in the US, but this strategy faces enormous obstacles. US diplomatic policy prioritizes the national interest, and this is why Beijing has been able to gain concessions from Washington over North Korea and other issues. But the promotion of US-style democracy is also a basis of US diplomacy. Thus, the US government is unlikely to sacrifice too much democracy for the sake of national interest.
Although the US strongly opposed Taiwan holding a referendum at first, it remained ambiguous in its stance, exhibiting a kind of dualism in its diplomacy. If Beijing puts excessive faith in Washington, then their unrealistic hopes will also be dashed.
China should hold more hope for itself. Confrontation and estrangement between China and Taiwan is the result of the gap between political systems. It will only be possible for the two sides to seek a certain kind of unification when China brings about democratization and erases this gap. China will only push Taiwan further away if it continues to maintain a dictatorship while persisting with military threats.
Wang Dan was a student leader during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests in Beijing.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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