The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is calling the Papua New Guinea diplomatic fund scandal a “fraud case” in an attempt to keep its impact and damage incurred in the realm of administrative and political responsibilities and to clear itself of any responsibility for alleged corruption. The logic behind this is that the public would accept a failed attempt to forge diplomatic relations but would not forgive government officials for lining their pockets with public funds in the name of secret diplomacy. Either way, the scandal has insulted the wisdom of the public and made it lose confidence in the nation’s democratic development.
It would not be a trick question to ask how far the nation is from true democracy. Despite the fact that Freedom House still ranked Taiwan as a “free” nation last year, in the area of “political rights” Taiwan has regressed.
In terms of structural development, Taiwan, as an emerging democracy, has a representative government, regular elections and the freedom of association and speech. As far as political participation is concerned, the turnout for recent elections has remained sufficiently high, but the extreme politicization of public issues has caused people to worry. However, these indexes do not meet expectations for the actual functioning of democracy and its quality.
Democratic elections alone cannot eliminate corruption, guarantee civil rights or keep politicians from violating the Constitution. What political scientists call “non-liberal democracy” is prevalent in many countries such as Peru, Pakistan, the Philippines, Iran and Russia. These countries lack deeply rooted equality in civil society and a constitutional tradition of checks and balances, which often leads to politicians who abuse their power, ignore public opinion and infringe upon human rights after obtaining “legitimacy” through elections. The public is thus forced to continue to exercise their “democratic” choice in an environment unsuitable to fair political competition.
Taiwan should remain vigilant lest it slips and turns into a “non-liberal democracy.” It is both internally and externally faced with even harsher democratic challenges than most countries. Over the past 20 years of democratization, Taiwan has produced several charismatic political leaders including former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and president-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
However, these politicians often fail to maintain humility before the Constitution or even deny its very existence after assuming office. The contributions made by Lee and Chen to the country’s democracy are contentious because politicians tend to abuse the state apparatus and are constantly involved in corruption and malfeasance after taking office, while the public is unable to do anything about it.
Internationally, Taiwan has a crisis of identity to deal with on its path toward strengthening its democracy. Domestically, it lacks an effective constitutional system. These major problems are not likely to be resolved in the near future. Beijing’s suppression of Taiwan’s international space and the public’s concerns over the increasing outflow of manufacturing appear to have provided a social foundation for the demonization of China. Because of the public’s bitterness, politicians haven’t sought to gain a real understanding of the problem. Instead, their hostile attitude toward China leads to shortsighted cross-strait policy.
The legitimacy of the Constitution has been challenged time and again, but the more than 10 years of constitutional amendments only show that the Constitution has been used as a tool: a product of power struggles and allocated interests.
The ridiculousness of the Papua New Guinea diplomatic fund scandal is not accidental, but the twisted result of the lack of transparent oversight and balance of power, the failure of government officials to maintain administrative neutrality and govern according to the law and the suppression and unjust treatment Taiwan receives in the international realm. Politicians have time after time used loopholes in the system to shake off blame and responsibility.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)’s win in the presidential election was not only the result of public anger and disappointment in the DPP, but also demonstrates that voters had no real choice. No one is very optimistic about whether the KMT will continue to strengthen Taiwan’s democracy. It is evident that having elections isn’t necessarily enough to save the nation’s democracy.
Taiwan must seriously consider the risk of falling into a “non-liberal democracy” and build a usable system of checks and balances.
Jackson Yeh is a project coordinator in the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Translated by Ted Yang
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS