Taiwan's economic miracle has been widely recognized both at home and abroad. Now some people are complacent about the success of Taiwan's democratization, calling it a political miracle.
I believe it is too early to call Taiwan's democratic transition a political miracle. First, those who call it a miracle mistakenly believe that it happened miraculously in a short time, from the later years of Chiang Ching-kuo's (
Yet these visible historic events were preceded by many years of social ferment, sacrifice and struggle during which the social support for democratic transition was amassed. The transition has not happened miraculously in a short period of time, so to call it a political miracle is misleading.
Next, there is much dispute among political scientists about whether Taiwan is a fully democratized country. Many believe that Taiwan's democratic transition has not been complete ("consolidated"). Many scholars of democratization point out that unconsolidated democracies can devolve or even collapse. So it is definitely too early to call this democratic transition a political miracle.
Some scholars believe that the democratic transition became complete when Chen won the nation's second direct presidential election in 2000 to oust the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government that had governed for over half a century. Yet upon closer examination, Taiwan's democracy currently faces three crises.
First, while a study found that three-fourths of survey respondents said they felt they had the power to affect the way the country is governed through the electoral and legal system, two-thirds of this sample said they thought that the government was not responsive to their concerns. This indicates that Taiwan's political process may lack an important feature of liberal democracy, namely multiple and ongoing channels for expression and representation of the public's interests beyond political parties and elections.
In addition, there are significant flaws in the way the elections are conducted. Informal institutions and channels such as corruption, local factionalism, personal connections, political clientelism and organized crime ("black gold") play substantive roles in the process of political representation. Vote-buying is still widespread and few candidates voluntarily abide by rules governing campaign funds and spending, as laws governing campaign violations are ineffective. Negative campaigning crowds out positive campaigning in most elections, and the law has little or no way of changing this.
Democracy's second obstacle is that while the law provides citizens with many liberties and rights, few laws effectively keep public authorities from committing unsavory deeds for political and personal motives. For example, at various legislative levels -- particularly the Legislative Yuan, the country's highest representative body -- members can do or say almost anything they want, exhibiting the most degrading and despicable behavior and voicing outright lies. Naturally this phenomenon is a matter of the legislator's personal qualities and moral discipline, but it also relates to the lack of legal restraints.
As another example, people can assert their rights to freedom of expression and assembly, but when they obviously cross the publically acceptable boundaries of such rights and freedoms, the authorities often fail to take action to preserve order. A case in point was the activities and behaviors of the pan-blue demonstrators on Ketegalan Boulevard after the presidential election.
A third barrier to democracy's consolidation is a lack of consensus on national identity. Domestically, the issue of national identity has been distorted, manipulated and unjustifiably portrayed as a matter of ethnic harmony, social stability or democratic rights. Externally, the national identity issue deprives Taiwanese of a unified position toward China's political, economic and military threats, undermining domestic and foreign policies.
Without a consensus on national identity, Taiwan has no clear statehood. As political scientists Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan write, "Democracy requires statehood. Without a sovereign state, there can be no secure democracy." Among countries that are undergoing democratic transition, Taiwan is a unique case in this regard. (Hong Kong has a similar problem, but Hong Kong is not a sovereign state.)
The change of government represents a very significant milestone in Taiwan's history and democratization. As such, Chen bears the great responsibility of installing the rule of law and firmly establishing national sovereignty. Until then, Taiwan's democracy is not miraculous but precarious.
Shane Lee is a professor of law and politics at Chang Jung University.
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS