November’s local elections revealed that Taiwan is not immune to populism and post-truth. Consequently, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) needs to improve its perception of the electorate.
When post-truth dominates, feelings and personal suppositions become more important in political debates than agreed facts. Obviously, the ideal must be that facts are the outset for a political dialogue.
The election of Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) as Kaohsiung mayor revealed that Taiwan can walk in the direction of a post-truth democracy.
The danger is that this post-truth direction could benefit China by creating disunity in Taiwan. It is this disunity that the results of the 2016 presidential and legislative elections seemed to promise an end to.
The result created hope for a political environment with a focus on Taiwan’s development, instead of the non-productive divide over unification with China and cross-strait relations.
A reality check reveals that Han is already trying to move in the direction of disunity after an election in which he displayed little knowledge of Kaohsiung and made overly ambitious proposals.
He openly supports the so-called “1992 consensus” used by the previous Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government in its dealings with China. The following economic integration with China resulted in dissatisfaction and in the Sunflower movement.
Han has also suggested that Chinese can buy real estate in Kaohsiung, and that the city should carry out oil exploration around Itu Aba Island (Taiping Island, 太平島). A necessary cooperation with China would put the US in a very difficult situation in the South China Sea.
Moreover, China is apparently planning to increase tourism to Kaohsiung, trying to create disunity in Taiwan, as Chinese tourism has reduced by about half since 2015.
Whether the Kaohsiung election is to become a guide for the future should be apparent in the coming year. Much depends on the KMT’s ability at the local level to reassert its national agenda and if it can benefit from the DPP’s challenges.
An entirely different electorate would emerge if an independent decides to run for president.
Other democracies are facing similar challenges with populism and post-truths, but Taiwan’s international status does not allow it to be considered a normal democracy. It is Taiwan’s faith to have higher standards than other democracies. It is this democratic image that generates support for Taiwan around the world.
Domestic setbacks influence Taiwan’s international image and the elections have cast doubt on the DPP government and next year’s presidential election.
Politics is about solving problems in society and creating results. The DPP seems to miss the point that it is also about communicating results and less about acting as a civil servant, and the next person in line might not be the right one for the job.
Many of the DPP’s policies appear to be correct measures for Taiwan’s future, but DPP members need to get out of their habit of bubble-thinking and only talking among themselves. They need to get out and talk with people between elections.
If the DPP’s reactive way of engaging with citizens abroad is any measure of how it talks to ordinary people in Taiwan, it is disappointing.
Populism and post-truth undermine the efficacy and legitimacy of democracy. In contrast to other countries, the consequences can influence the sovereignty of Taiwan.
Taiwan’s faith demands that it has higher democratic standards that can drag the nation away from populism and post-truth democracy. Fair or unfair, this is the condition that Taiwan is living under.
Michael Danielsen is chairman of Taiwan Corner.
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
Prior to marrying a Taiwanese and moving to Taiwan, a Chinese woman, surnamed Zhang (張), used her elder sister’s identity to deceive Chinese officials and obtain a resident identity card in China. After marrying a Taiwanese, surnamed Chen (陳) and applying to move to Taiwan, Zhang continued to impersonate her sister to obtain a Republic of China ID card. She used the false identity in Taiwan for 18 years. However, a judge ruled that her case does not constitute forgery and acquitted her. Does this mean that — as long as a sibling agrees — people can impersonate others to alter, forge
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS