IN ANALYZING THE results of the legislative elections, it's clear that the number of seats each party won was not in proportion to the number of votes cast for them. Thanks to its strong campaigning, the pan-blue camp saw its votes concentrated in the right places, so that as many of its candidates as possible were elected. The low turnout helped the highly concentrated firepower of the pan-blue camp deal a fatal blow to the pan-green camp, whose votes were much more scattered.
Taking all eligible voters as a denominator, each of the two parties won only a small number of votes, and the difference between them was minor. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) won 30 percent of votes, whereas a little more than 20 percent voted for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Thus the results of the election was influenced by not only those willing to cast their ballots, but also the unseen 40 or so percent.
However, the spirit of democracy means respecting the public's choices and decisions -- and the public can decide not only which party to vote for, but whether to vote at all.
Nevertheless, the reasons for voting or not voting should still be analyzed, especially as new voting districts were used. Some voting districts were even smaller than districts for local government elections. Banciao (
Such an election system obviously leads voters in a certain direction to some degree. Apart from that, the biggest problem in Taiwanese democracy again raised its head -- vote-buying. Many cases of alleged vote buying have already entered the judicial system. Just when will Taiwan's democracy rid itself of this stain? And just when will Taiwanese stop selling their votes and their integrity?
Perhaps democratic consciousness has not really taken root since the transfer of power. Perhaps democratic values, which create a democratic culture of consciousness, self-confidence and self-respect, are still not firmly established. If we are completely honest about this issue and continue to question why people still consider their votes something they can sell -- even after 50 years of elections -- we may find some answers. The following are some of the most noteworthy.
First, some voters seem to have drawn a distinction between democratic governance and voting. They see their vote as something that can be exchanged for immediate benefits, without taking democracy into consideration. In the process, they trample their own rights as citizens.
Second, there are still some voters who don't care about national identity and social justice. They make calculations based only on their own situations. They have little historic consciousness, sense of responsibility, or ideas and hopes for the future of their children and grandchildren. If their vote can bring them a few thousand dollars right away, they will sell out.
Third, people who sell their vote do not feel ashamed about their actions because they do not recognize the idea of a vision for the country, or really understand why a democracy cannot function well unless legislators represent actual public opinion.
To these people, vote-selling appears to have nothing to do with reasons or morals, and the idea that they should always do what is economically best for them lead them to a line of reasoning that only takes personal benefits into consideration. As a result, they rationalize this erroneous means of participating in democracy.
Yeh Hai-yen is a professor in Soochow University's Department of Philosophy.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
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,
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
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Acting Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) has formally announced his intention to stand for permanent party chairman. He has decided that he is the right person to steer the fledgling third force in Taiwan’s politics through the challenges it would certainly face in the post-Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) era, rather than serve in a caretaker role while the party finds a more suitable candidate. Huang is sure to secure the position. He is almost certainly not the right man for the job. Ko not only founded the party, he forged it into a one-man political force, with himself
RSS