Some years ago, I spent time in Taiwan as a student and then as a professor at a local university. Residents I met at that time were fascinated with the US and frequently asked me about democracy in the US, which I was happy to talk about.
In 1980, when there was an important election pending in Taiwan, I was asked to join an election observer team to discuss the events of the day and suggest what Taiwan should do to ensure a fair, honest and meaningful election. Local and foreign academics joined the group. We also met some American diplomats who shared their thoughts.
The first idea expressed by local academics was that there should be no voting machines. They were fearful that they could be rigged. In the US at the time, voting machines were a part of most elections and I thought some American academics might argue in favor of them. That did not happen.
The next issues we talked about were the ballot boxes, the rooms where the balloting was to take place and the processes.
I was pleased to learn that the ballot boxes were translucent so that anyone watching could see that a ballot went into the box and stayed there, but nobody could see whom the voter cast a ballot for.
Officials were there to observe, and I was told that if a voter opened their ballot to let anyone see, it would be invalidated. There was concern that the voter might have been paid to vote for a candidate and would show his ballot to prove that they had done that.
The room where the voting was done had windows so that people could watch the procedures from outside. And many did. I did too.
Voters presented their national ID card before they cast their ballot. It was marked so that the voter could not vote multiple times.
Rather than using a voter registration system, the household registration system was used to keep a record of qualified voters. It had been used for many years and was scrupulously kept. So was the national ID card system.
The Central Election Commission was created that year, an independent, non-partisan organization, to oversee elections and make sure they were orderly and fair.
When the voting time ended, officials removed the ballots in the view of observers, showed each ballot, and then told a counter the result. The latter wrote on the wall or a blackboard the candidates’ name and their vote tally for everyone to see. When the counting was done, they telephoned the results to the election headquarters for a final tally. That was done on television for people to watch.
I was very impressed by the process. I was convinced it was transparent and honest. I thought at the time that everything possible was done to make sure there was no tampering.
The academics and some US and Taiwanese officials cited other regulations and procedures that accompanied the voting and made some suggestions.
Some people in our group broached the idea of a longer voting period, perhaps several days. Some supported the idea of absentee voting to eliminate the cost of transportation to one’s hometown to cast a ballot — which was the rule.
It was a general consensus that the current rules would better ensure an honest election. The Taiwanese academics said that voters should accept some inconvenience to guarantee that Taiwan’s budding democracy worked well.
As time passed and there were more elections, the majority of the processes used in that election were retained. Most thought that they preserved voting integrity and should not be changed.
That is not to say election campaigns did not progress. In 1986, Taiwanese had their first two-party election. Party competition made Taiwan’s democracy more real.
In 1996, Taiwan held its first direct presidential and vice-presidential election. Previously, the now-defunct National Assembly voted for candidates of these offices. This change was consequential.
In 2000, Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), the candidate of the opposition Democratic Progressive Party, won the presidency. It was the first rotation of ruling parties. This was another important step in consolidating Taiwan’s democracy.
Fast forward to two decades into the new century and polls of Taiwanese voters asking about their political system showed they overwhelmingly supported democracy and believed Taiwan was a democracy. They were proud of that. The most cynical said that democracy was a messy system. I heard one say that democracy was not a good system, but it was better than any alternative.
Broadening the discussion, it seemed that Taiwan had more to boast about than others regarding its election processes and the standing of its democracy, even its teacher — the US.
According to Liberty House, last year there had been 16 consecutive years of more nations experiencing a decline in liberty, an essential quality of democracy, than progress. The Arab spring had not produced democracies. In Africa five countries’ democracies had devolved since 2015. Autocrats abounded.
According to a study by the Economist Intelligence Unit, the US is now a “flawed democracy” — behind Spain, Costa Rica and Chile. It is worse than it was last year.
Others said that the core requirements for democracy to succeed and its important traits were not showing well in the US. The middle class in the US has been shrinking and it is evident this is still the situation, even more so.
The fair and unbiased media have vanished. News reporters are seen among the most dishonest and least-respected groups in society. A large number of people do not view the US’ legal system as unbiased or based on equality before the law. Furthermore, respect for those in charge of education face similar criticism.
Thus, Taiwan’s democracy stands out at home and elsewhere, including the US, as a unique model of success to be respected and admired.
Does anyone dare say the pupil has bested the teacher?
John Copper is a Stanley J. Buckman professor emeritus of international studies at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee. He is the author of more than 35 books on Taiwan and US-China-Taiwan policy.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
Today is Feb. 28, a day that Taiwan associates with two tragic historical memories. The 228 Incident, which started on Feb. 28, 1947, began from protests sparked by a cigarette seizure that took place the day before in front of the Tianma Tea House in Taipei’s Datong District (大同). It turned into a mass movement that spread across Taiwan. Local gentry asked then-governor general Chen Yi (陳儀) to intervene, but he received contradictory orders. In early March, after Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) dispatched troops to Keelung, a nationwide massacre took place and lasted until May 16, during which many important intellectuals
RSS