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 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
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS