The term "civil society" has been bandied about a lot in recent weeks in relation to the campaign to oust President Chen Shui-bian (
However, like most political commentary in Taiwan, the truth is often buried, or sidelined, by the personalities involved and their political agendas. Both sides are guilty of this. In the midst of this muckraking, obstinance and sheer bloody-mindedness, the truth of civil society is lost.
What is meant by "civil society"?
The term was popularized during the late 1980s and early 1990s against the backdrop of a disintegrating Soviet Union and the collapse of authoritarian regimes across Eastern Europe. In many respects, it was a woolly way of explaining the sudden resurgence of bottom-up political action that swept the region, and evolved out of a liberal-democratic capitalist thesis that put the middle-classes at the heart of struggles against authoritarian states.
While civil society was not considered to be the exclusive preserve of the middle-classes, they tended to dominate the myriad of social organizations such as sports clubs, business associations, environmental groups and organized labor that comprised it. This is the essence of civil society. It is not in itself political. Taiwanese politicians please take note.
So how does a motley collection of apolitical groups enter the political arena?
Generally, civil society becomes politicized, and rebels, when its civil space has been eroded -- usually by illiberal regulations and authoritarian dictates. However, such a civil rebellion is not inevitable.
First, groups must have a pre-existing sense of them-selves, their social rights and roles. Alternatively, an existing authoritarian regime that had previously crushed all civil movements could relax its hold on society allowing space in which new civil groupings could emerge. These are important distinctions that define the boundaries of any conflict between society and state or between different civil factions.
Given all this, how should we consider the recent unrest in Taiwan? Is it a truly civil action? Are the actors genuine representatives of social groups? Is there a real possibility of it escalating into a nationwide grass-roots movement? How relevant is Taiwan's own democratization moment to the current situation?
Taiwan's current political situation is colored by the remnants of the previous Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime. The country, to use a metaphor, has a hangover and needs to completely rid itself of the toxins that dampen the mood of the nation and affect the very behavior of its people.
That said, the withdrawal of the state into a more prescribed role has been widely praised. The military has distanced itself and reaffirmed its focus on external threats. Elections at all levels have started to embed the notion that political competition is not a zero-sum game.
Unfortunately, not only does this seem to be restricted to the political realm, but even here groups, mostly with ties to the older KMT regime, have had problems accepting this idea.
Together, these elements have led to an explosion in the number of civil groups throughout Taiwan. But these have generally been absent from the rallies and commentary.
There has been some civil involvement like the request from a group of lawyers and another from a group of academics asking Chen to step down, but mostly the situation is politically driven. The appearance of politicos, and the usual pan-blue suspects in particular, further delegitimize it as a civil phenomenon.
The anti-Chen movement has clear limitations. Taiwan is still a relatively young democratic society. While procedurally it has the trappings of a liberal democracy, it is still a democracy with "Chinese characteristics."
Which brings me to my final point about what civil society is.
For a nation to have a civil society it must be civil. This is not a play on words. When the people are generally peaceful, readily obey reasonable laws and tend to compromise, positive relationships flourish.
The alternative is bad civil society, where social interactions are dominated by extremism, unreasonableness and an unwillingness to compromise. An uncivil society is prone to spasms and conflict.
Taiwan has elements of both. It is young and untested. The real danger of the last several years and the current protests is that a bad civil society will emerge.
Taiwanese citizens are therefore faced with a choice, not over their leaders, who are mostly products of their environment, but over their society. Which is it to be? Civil or uncivil?
Ben Adams is a political analyst from New Zealand now based in Taipei.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS