President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) presidency can best be described as a “democratic dictatorship” in that he often refers to the votes he garnered during last year’s election when claiming public support for his presidency.
Although it’s been nearly a year since the election, Ma still uses this approach as an endorsement of his policies and an affirmation of his political credibility, ignoring the fact that the election of a president and support for his administration are two entirely different issues.
Ma interprets the ballots cast in the presidential election as a blank check to be used as he sees fit — and even as an excuse to suppress public opinion.
This is clear evidence that in his view of democracy, an actively participating citizenry should be replaced by a passive group of voters that can only express their view on voting day, and that he should act as their representative at all other times.
All expression of public opinion on issues such as political credibility, sunshine legislation or cross-strait relations are restricted because in Ma’s mind, the public consists of voters and not citizens, democracy only exists on election day and total vote numbers replace expressions of public opinion.
This also explains why Ma is so dismissive of referendum democracy and why calls for the abolition of the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法) has been embroiled in dispute.
The idea of citizens expressing their views through street demonstrations or criticizing the government has become unacceptable in the president’s view. Democracy is reduced to the act of voting, while all other issues should be dealt with by the elite, and the president in particular.
The most obvious manipulation of the democratic process can be seen in the merging and elevated administrative status of Kaohsiung, Taichung and Taipei counties and cities, leading to suspicions that the local elections at the end of this year will be politically manipulated.
The greatest contribution of elections to democracy is the uncertainty about the popular choice, which implies that there will never be a perennial winner because the outcome is decided by a public that may change its mind at any time.
The biggest crisis facing Taiwan’s elections is this uncertainty may not be the result of the elite competing for public support, but instead a result of manipulation of the rules — be it by a single party or even just a single person.
If the rules of the game are not accepted by all participating parties, fair elections — the source of democratic legitimacy and consolidation — will deteriorate into manipulated elections, resulting in genuine democracy taking a step backward.
This all means that democratic elections are not necessarily a guarantee of freedom, something that is difficult to understand from the historically linear relationship between freedom and democracy which ignores the darker aspects of democratic elections.
Fareed Zakaria’s popular work — The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad — which was published in 2004, discusses the universality of the view that freedom is guaranteed by democracy based on the view that there is a balance between democracy and freedom.
In doing so, it also explains how Ma’s government is establishing a democratic dictatorship in Taiwan.
Hsu Yung-ming is an assistant professor in the department of political science at Soochow University.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS