After the 2000 presidential election, former president Lee Teng-hui (
After the KMT and PFP became allies, for both this year's presidential election and the upcoming legislative elections, the pan-blue camp has attempted to focus on issues related to the public's livelihood or the government's achievements while campaigning. However, the direction of Taiwan's political situation mostly focuses on our national status. The issues of whether to amend the Constitution or create a new one, the question of the national emblem and title, and criticism of the KMT's outdated party-state ideology have dominated the campaign. This has gradually become the public consensus.
The pan-blue camp proposes maintaining the status quo, saying that the Republic of China (ROC) is an independent sovereign state, so it is unnecessary to rectify the nation's name. This will both maintain the government's legitimacy and avoid irritating China or triggering a war in the Taiwan Strait.
These statements are not groundless. They are based on realistic considerations and profound historical and cultural motivations. The problem is this: Ever since the early 1990s, a pattern has emerged in the development of Taiwan's rule of law. Taiwan has repeatedly proven through upholding the processes of Western democracy that the nation is indeed an independent sovereign state. Through successive democratic elections, Lee and Chen's administrations have firmly demonstrated our existence.
In my opinion, the mainstream opinion in Taiwan is neither to maintain the status quo nor boost the economy, as the pan-blue camp claims. It is impossible for Taiwan to accept the status quo of not being recognized as a nation. In particular, whether you like them or not, and whether you agree or not, Taiwan's constitutional reforms, especially those in the 1990s, were accomplished through democratic procedures.
Of course, this does not mean that the pan-green camp's accusation that the pan-blue camp is using China's military threat as a campaign trick to scare the Taiwanese people is true. The myth of Chinese nationalism has not yet been broken, and it serves as an emotional basis for a unification by force. This can't be resolved simply by telling the public not to be afraid. Those in power, if they are responsible enough, should be extremely cautious about any possible tragedy caused by irrational factors.
As voters, the only value that we must safeguard is respect for decisions made through democratic procedures. After Taiwan's democratization process over the past half a century, we should certainly clear away accumulated anti-democratic sediment so as to improve the quality of democracy.
We are now in the last phase of our transformation. No matter how the pan-blue and pan-green camps attack each other, both sides believe in democracy and Taiwan's status as an independent sovereign state. Obviously, our problem is external recognition, not internal awareness. How to avoid internal confrontation is the biggest challenge to our democracy at present. Since politicians are so unreliable, we can only hope that voters will act in a mature fashion.
Sun Ta-chuan is the director of the Graduate Institute of Ethnic Development at Donghua University.
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