Can a group of people used to taking orders be their own masters? If freedom suddenly falls in your lap, would order collapse overnight and result in anarchy?
The 2007 documentary by Chinese director Chen Weijun (陳為軍), Please Vote for Me (請投我一票), portrayed how a class of elementary-school students in Wuhan, Hubei Province, chose their class leader in “democratic” elections. Just as their parents are deprived of their political freedom, students have no voting rights as class leaders are appointed by their teachers. The film was a political experiment allowing us to observe democracy in practice.
On the surface, the film is a disappointment for those who support China’s democratization. The intense competition between the three candidates led to vote buying, slander and even intimidation and threats. Through the director’s camera, the Taiwanese audience could see many problems that are familiar from our own grassroots elections where violence and money distort our free choice. Ironically, although the students were granted the right to vote, they elected the candidate who was originally appointed by the teacher. Since they reached the same goal by different means, why put in so much effort to play this democratic game?
Maybe we should see this film in a broader perspective. The new authoritarianism movement in China in the 1980s and New Leftism today both stress that democratic reform is not the key to Chinese development. Rather, it is strong government leadership along with the ability to continue to push for economic development and social equality.
Obviously, this view could easily become a defense for those in power. Aren’t claims of “different national conditions” or “insufficient public preparation” and other absurd reasons often used to resist calls for democratization? The film creates a sharp contrast between how orderly the students behave when they raise the national flag, do physical exercise, line up, shout slogans, and how the strong bully the weak, or the majority bully the minority, as soon as it comes to free elections.
If we take a closer look, however, we see that democracy cannot be simplistically described as just voting. The teacher who arranged the election did not explain the game’s rules. As a result, the students thought being class leader meant being a ruler who can order classmates about according to their own wishes. More importantly, when the candidates stirred up the crowd to make trouble or clearly practiced vote buying, the teacher simply sat back and didn’t interfere.
When the candidate that had bullied more than 20 classmates was elected, how should we view the result? Was it a helpless decision of the disadvantaged who were forced to exchange their freedom for safety?
As the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau once said: “The English people believes itself to be free; it is gravely mistaken; it is free only during election of members of parliament; as soon as the members are elected, the people is enslaved; it is nothing.”
His comment can also be applied to the democratic farce in Chen’s documentary.
If elementary school students do not have the right of freedom from the playground bullies or the interference of powerful parents and if the authority of class leaders cannot be restrained, their votes are only meaningful in a nominal sense. The same reasoning applies to the wider Chinese society.
The right to vote brings little change unless all disadvantaged groups can be free from the oppression of powerful individuals and government representatives. This is why diverse rights protection groups are key to China’s democratization.
Ivan Ho is an associate professor of sociology at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS