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
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS