Longtime Taiwan watcher Bruce Jacobs is back with a book that looks at the minutiae of Taiwan’s long journey from colonial property, authoritarian subject to imperfect democracy, in a work that makes a solid contribution to the field of Taiwan studies.
It is important to establish from the outset what Democratizing Taiwan is and what it isn’t. What it isn’t is a scholarly volume on how Taiwan democratized, or to what extent the various conditions that are essential to the emergence of democracy interacted to allow the country’s 23 million people to transition peacefully from authoritarian rule to democracy. While Chapter One, How Taiwan Became Democratic, briefly addresses the matter and endeavors to distinguish between democratization and liberalization and does highlight some of the-then factors that led to democratization, readers who seek in-depth research into democratic development in Taiwan will have to look elsewhere.
What it also isn’t is a comparative study of Taiwan’s democratization, which would shed light on why Taiwan democratized when it did, and why other countries that have achieved similar standards of living didn’t go down the same path, or did so later on. Although Jacobs briefly contrasts Taiwan’s experience with that of South Korea, a much longer discourse is necessary, and in fact would be enough in itself to constitute another book.
But comparisons and contrasts isn’t what Jacobs, a professor of Asian languages and studies at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, set out to do with Democratizing Taiwan.
The title of the book itself is key to understanding the nature of Jacobs’ work, as it simultaneously points to a descriptive narrative of Taiwan in the process of democratization — in other words, a blow-by-blow account of who did what, when and who won elections by how many percentage points — and to a prescriptive work on how to deepen democracy in Taiwan. While the book is largely descriptive, using newspaper reports or on-scene accounts by Jacobs, ever the hands-on type of academic, inter alia it makes a strong case on how to win, and not to win, future elections — a signal that is especially relevant to the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
Although the chapters are relatively brief, each manages to extract the essentials of the period being scrutinized, whether it is that of the Japanese or Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regimes — which he both terms “colonial” — or the Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) presidencies, which constitute the three main parts of the book (the narrative ends in late 2011, prior to the January 2012 presidential election).
For that reason alone, the numerous tables in the book on voting outcome in legislative, local and presidential elections provides a valuable, one-stop resource for any student or academic focusing on electoral developments here. What the book makes clear through use of such data is that while “Mainlanders” often tend to vote along ethnic lines, Taiwanese are far more likely to cast their vote along issue-oriented lines, which is the only way to explain why, despite representing a small minority of Taiwan’s population, the KMT’s “Mainlanders” have performed so well in one election after another. It also becomes clear that pragmatic issues, rather than relations with China, sovereignty or identity, are the chessboard upon which elections are won and lost.
While allowances should be made for other factors that have historically given the KMT an advantage over the opposition, such as money, Jacobs makes a strong case for issues-based electoral outcomes, and has plenty of numbers to support his argument.
Jacobs’ account of the splits and alliances that formed ahead of important elections is unlikely to have much appeal outside academic circles that look specifically at Taiwan. But for those of us who do, it serves as a useful reminder that despite the seemingly insurmountable blue-green divide that characterizes Taiwanese politics today, cooperation between parties on specific issues did occur and could occur again, which serves as another lesson for those who argue that cooperation with the KMT is impossible.
Democratizing Taiwan also succeeds in describing the process of change that occurred under Lee and Chen, especially in the reorganization of the legislature, voting systems, constitutional amendments, and the restructuring of government agencies.
While it is often convenient to accuse Chen of all kinds of ills, there nevertheless is little doubt that his administration played no small role, especially after 2004, in transforming the civil service into one that serves whoever is in power rather than a specific political party, something that can also be said of the armed forces, despite Chen’s difficulty in winning their trust. This aspect of Chen’s presidency, though often overlooked, was one of the milestones of Taiwan’s democratic consolidation.
Of the three latter sections, those on Lee and Chen are the strongest and that on Ma the weakest, probably because the Ma presidency is still a work in progress, and we don’t have the benefit of time and hindsight to make a full account of his failures and successes.
Still, the author makes his view clear that the rapid reform seen under Lee and Chen has lost momentum under Ma. Conversely, Jacobs’ admiration for Lee’s ability to work within the KMT and to launch Taiwan on the road to democracy is evident, though he nevertheless manages to make it clear that Lee’s efforts alone were insufficient to create a democracy in the true sense of the word, if only because he ran out of time and had to step down in 2000.
His section on Chen, above-mentioned accomplishments aside, is especially relevant in what it tells about the DPP’s inability to appeal to the majority of Taiwanese, both during the Chen presidency and since 2008, when the KMT regained power in the country’s second peaceful change of the guard. Resisting the temptation to dictate how the DPP or other parties should approach future elections, Jacobs nevertheless provides ample evidence to discredit the view that a DPP win is by now mathematically impossible because of gerrymandering, a “free but not fair” system, or growing Chinese influence. Against all odds, Chen won in 2000 and again in 2004, and there is no reason why the DPP could not do so again — provided the party shows a willingness to honestly revisit the recent past and to recognize what went wrong. More of the same, Jacobs tells us between the lines, is a sure recipe for failure.
While we still have to wait for the definitive work on Taiwan’s democracy, Democratizing Taiwan is an important, and eminently accessible, addition to a relatively small body of literature that looks specifically at the unique experiment that is Taiwan’s emergence as a democracy.
March 24 to March 30 When Yang Bing-yi (楊秉彝) needed a name for his new cooking oil shop in 1958, he first thought of honoring his previous employer, Heng Tai Fung (恆泰豐). The owner, Wang Yi-fu (王伊夫), had taken care of him over the previous 10 years, shortly after the native of Shanxi Province arrived in Taiwan in 1948 as a penniless 21 year old. His oil supplier was called Din Mei (鼎美), so he simply combined the names. Over the next decade, Yang and his wife Lai Pen-mei (賴盆妹) built up a booming business delivering oil to shops and
Indigenous Truku doctor Yuci (Bokeh Kosang), who resents his father for forcing him to learn their traditional way of life, clashes head to head in this film with his younger brother Siring (Umin Boya), who just wants to live off the land like his ancestors did. Hunter Brothers (獵人兄弟) opens with Yuci as the man of the hour as the village celebrates him getting into medical school, but then his father (Nolay Piho) wakes the brothers up in the middle of the night to go hunting. Siring is eager, but Yuci isn’t. Their mother (Ibix Buyang) begs her husband to let
In late December 1959, Taiwan dispatched a technical mission to the Republic of Vietnam. Comprising agriculturalists and fisheries experts, the team represented Taiwan’s foray into official development assistance (ODA), marking its transition from recipient to donor nation. For more than a decade prior — and indeed, far longer during Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) rule on the “mainland” — the Republic of China (ROC) had received ODA from the US, through agencies such as the International Cooperation Administration, a predecessor to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). More than a third of domestic investment came via such sources between 1951
For the past century, Changhua has existed in Taichung’s shadow. These days, Changhua City has a population of 223,000, compared to well over two million for the urban core of Taichung. For most of the 1684-1895 period, when Taiwan belonged to the Qing Empire, the position was reversed. Changhua County covered much of what’s now Taichung and even part of modern-day Miaoli County. This prominence is why the county seat has one of Taiwan’s most impressive Confucius temples (founded in 1726) and appeals strongly to history enthusiasts. This article looks at a trio of shrines in Changhua City that few sightseers visit.
RSS