The Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) four decades of martial-law rule on Taiwan came to an end in 1987, but Taiwan did not immediately escape from the shadow of authoritarian rule with free elections.
Unlike the former communist regimes in Eastern Europe that were able to establish democracy via free elections at the first try, it was not until 1996 that Taiwan's first presidential election took place. The national image created by the KMT's great Chinese ideology handicapped Taiwan by creating uncertainty over its international status and national identity.
German-British sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf once commented on democratization in Eastern Europe saying that the reason why Eastern Europe was able to successfully end domination by Communist regimes was because words like "citizen" and "civic" were not deleted from their vocabulary. Having survived the communist terminology purges, "citizenship" and "civic society" became beacons of freedom. Without exception, the post-World War II communist regimes all collapsed following free elections.
But in Taiwan, even though it commenced elections of public representatives, this did not signal the end of the KMT and its Chinese style of martial law rule. The elections of public representatives were not held based on the principles of free elections, but instead, they were no more than tools to be manipulated by politicians in the struggle to realize their own ambitions. In other words, the so-called "free elections" in Taiwan back then had nothing to do with the formation of a real civic society. Politics in Taiwan was commercialized rather than a part of cultural development, and it was not until 2000 that Taiwan realized its first transfer of political power.
Unfortunately, Taiwan still has not fully experienced the benefits of its democratic transition. Rather, it has simply inherited China's old political system through the structures of the KMT government. The pressure to which President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) government has been subjected to because of its poor performance comes from outside the political system.
At first glance, the "One Million Voices Against Corruption" campaign may look splendid given its slogans of "civic society" and "anti-corruption." But in fact, the campaign is a product of the influence of Taiwan's blue colonial powers, the slanted reporting of the nation's pro-China media outlets and a fraudulent "revolution" by DPP insiders.
Because Chen's DPP administration has failed to push through a revolution in government, it has sparked a counter revolution, which has taken the form of political theater. Such a show, in which red replaces blue, could potentially pave the way for the creation of a "third power," but whether it can replace the KMT's colonial governmental structure is another question.
Dahrendorf said that the only real road is the road to freedom, and that its three pillars are democracy, a market economy and a vibrant civil society. Given that Taiwan's democratization is still underway, if people have anything to say about Chen's DPP administration, then they should do so by following the rule of law. If the campaign strategists do not harbor malicious intentions, they will not launch a coup and abandon the proper path of reforming and reconstructing the nation.
Lee Min-yung is a poet.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS