During the past few weeks, Taiwan was prominently on display in the window of the world. Elections are generally exciting fare in any circumstances, but one can imagine that the Taiwanese people could have done with a bit less excitement this time around. Still, it is good to analyze the situation in Taiwan, and see how it looks from the perspective of western Europe.
Before going into the current situation, it is necessary to recall that Taiwan has come a long way from the repressive one-party state of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which held the nation in its iron grip from the mid-1940s through the end of the 1980s. The democratic transition which took place was primarily due to the hard work of the democratic movement, led by President Chen Shui-bian's (
In any society which goes through a major democratic transition, there are always elements which hark back to the undemocratic"good old days." In Russia and eastern Europe, there are such remnants of the communist parties. In Taiwan, at least a part of the KMT/People First Party (PFP) opposition seem to fall into this category: They cannot accept that Taiwan has become democratic and the DPP has come to power.
In addition to the democratic versus non-democratic dichotomy, there is the Taiwanese-minded orientation of Chen's DPP versus the Chinese-minded orientation of the present leadership of the KMT/PFP. During the 40 years of martial law, political power was virtually exclusively in the hands of the Chinese Mainlanders who came over with Chiang Kai-shek (
Still, Chen and his DPP have emphasized ethnic harmony: Anyone who loves Taiwan is considered Taiwanese, irrespective of ethnic origin. The present leadership in the KMT/PFP, on the other hand, has whipped up ethnic discord by twisting and distorting Chen's position.
Going into the election, the issue of a referendum was a major one. In any democratic society, a referendum is a commonplace mechanism to gauge the views of the population on a particular issue. In Taiwan it became a hot potato because its giant neighbor China doesn't like democracy, and the prospect of the Taiwanese people starting to use democratic means certainly looks blasphemous in the eyes of the communist dictatorship.
The problem was compounded when US President George W. Bush got into the act last December: Eager to placate visiting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (
In spite of the fact that the blue camp jumped on the pro-China bandwagon and urged supporters to boycott the referendum (even the watered-down version), some 7.45 million voters expressed themselves in the referendum, with some 91 percent in favor of the purchase of additional weapons to counter China's threat. The fact that the referendum didn't make it was thus due to the high threshold -- 50 percent of the registered voters. With such a threshold most referendums wouldn't make it in western Europe either.
Next is the issue of the closeness of the outcome of the vote. In this, Taiwan is not unique. In many countries there have been close elections. But the essence of democracy is that the loser graciously concedes, and awaits his next turn. In Taiwan, we instead saw the spectacle of KMT Chairman Lien Chan (
Large numbers of international observers, including ourselves, can attest that the election process was orderly and that the counting was scrupulous. If there were reports of irregularities, they were of Lien and his party buying votes on a large scale, in particular paying for the tickets of thousands of China-based businessmen returning home to vote.
And then there was the assassination attempt. In any society this would have led to expressions of deep concern also from the opposition -- for the safety and well-being of the victims. But instead of focusing anger on the fact that such a reprehensible act could take place in Taiwan's traditionally peaceful society, Lien and Soong twisted things around and alleged that the assassination attempt had been staged.
This is simply ludicrous. If one would stage such a thing, then one would not do it in broad daylight, in the middle of a crowded street, with TV cameras rolling. The suggestion itself is testimony to the twisted minds of Lien and his followers.
If there are "clouds of secrecy, manipulation and mistrust" hanging over Taiwan, they are due to the hate campaigns of the pan-blue Lien-Soong ticket. They are simply sore losers who do not have the foggiest idea of what democracy is all about.
Where does Taiwan go from here? Getting back to normal is only possible if the KMT/PFP alliance atones for its mistakes and goes through a speedy reform process in which the old leadership is ditched, so that a new Taiwan-oriented leadership can come to the fore and lead the two parties toward a democratic role in society.
From the European perspective, we congratulate Chen and the DPP on his re-election, and for making democracy work in Taiwan spite of mountainous challenges. That is no small accomplishment, but the work is far from being complete. We wish Taiwan and its people well on the arduous road toward international recognition and a full and equal place as a member of the international family of nations. Many years from now, we will look back at March 2004 and conclude that it was an important watershed in Taiwan's history.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique in the Hague.
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