This year could be called the Year of Asian Democracy. It is difficult to keep up with all the elections in East and Southeast Asia: the presidential election in Taiwan, the parliamentary elections in Malaysia in March, parliamentary elections in South Korea and Indonesia last month, the elections to Japan's upper house in July, and the presidential elections in the Philippines on Monday and Indonesia in July. Although the economic and educational standards of most of these countries fall behind those of Taiwan, Taiwan has, through the behavior of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜), provided one of the worst examples of democracy in Asia.
The two have acted arbitrarily and irresponsibly for the sake of personal benefit, and they can only be described as villains of Asian democracy.
First, their behavior has had a great influence on China. People in China working hard for the country's democratization have all along used Taiwan as a reference. However, Lien and Soong have disregarded Taiwan's tradition of letting the ballot decide the winner, and, without a shred of proof of the election having been rigged, mobilized the public for illegal protests. This has had a great impact on the Chinese people's confidence in democracy, and made them see democracy as a source of chaos.
The democratization of China would further peace and stability in Asia, but Lien and Soong's behavior has clearly damaged its development.
Second, demands in Hong Kong for the direct election of their chief executive and democratization have been dealt a blow thanks to Lien and Soong.
The past two months have shown that we still have a long way to go before achieving true democracy, and it has made it impossible for democracy in Taiwan to serve as a beacon for those in Hong Kong and China. It has also given Beijing an excuse to block liberalization in Hong Kong.
Lien and Soong have also disregarded the capability of the democratic mechanism to resolve disputes, instead relying on extralegal means to threaten the president and bring unsubstantiated complaints to the international press. This has created an image of Taiwan as incapable of democratic self-management and in need of foreign assistance to maintain social stability.
Because the pan-blue leaders have been bringing their complaints directly to the international community, they have caused the US role to become highly politicized. Not only that -- the outside world's questioning of Washington's involvement in Taiwan's domestic affairs has offered Beijing an opportunity to interfere in the workings of Taiwan's democracy, with China's Taiwan Affairs Office issuing strongly worded statements on the election.
Taiwan's democracy no longer shines brightly in the eyes of the international community, and the country's international image has been ruined.
Although most governments have given in to pressure from China to different degrees, public opinion in these countries is still supportive of Taiwan's democratic achievements. Public pressure has often led to other parliaments supporting Taiwan.
Refusing to concede defeat, Lien and Soong have used irregular means to challenge the election -- a judicial ballot recount, making statements to the international media about vote-rigging and suggesting the March 19 assassination attempt on President Chen Shui-bian (
The international community is largely unaware of the true situation and unable to verify these statements. Some friends of Taiwan, unwilling and unable to gain a deeper understanding, have come to the mistaken conclusion that the statements are true.
Understanding that elections are about counting heads and not about breaking them allows for the peaceful transfer of power without the need for military force to decide the winner. This wisdom is the result of thousands of years of political development.
Because the result of the presidential election did not suit the taste of Lien and Soong, however, they have resorted to savagery in order to destroy this wisdom. Lacking support from a majority of the public, and with the international media not buying their explanations, their strategy of using the international community to reach their goals has failed.
Yet the March 26 attack on Central Election Commission offices and the violent scenes in front of the Presidential Office on April 10 received widespread international coverage, which lead to global disappointment with Taiwan, a nation that calls itself a democratic model. For Taiwan, the broken glass outside the commission is symbolic of the country's broken dream of democracy.
Holmes Liao is an adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
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