Today is the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) passing on Jan. 13, 1988. That affords us the opportunity to reflect on his legacy, which offers crucial lessons in an era increasingly marked by the global resurgence of authoritarianism.
Today’s political landscape — dominated by figures such as Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan — poses significant challenges to liberal democracies. Chiang’s story provides a unique lens to explore the potential for transformation within authoritarian systems and the enduring value of democratic ideals.
Chiang Ching-kuo was the son of the authoritarian leader Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石). He initially followed in his father’s footsteps as a staunch defender of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) one-party rule.
His early years were marked by his role in enforcing martial law, overseeing the “White Terror” period of political suppression. Yet, despite this authoritarian background, Chiang became the architect of Taiwan’s transition to democracy — a decision that resonates profoundly today.
Chiang Ching-kuo’s journey from an enforcer of repression to a reformer committed to democratization is emblematic of the complexities of leadership within an authoritarian framework. Initially shaped by his education in the Soviet Union and his father’s centralized governance model, Chiang Ching-kuo’s early policies in Taiwan reflected strict control. However, geopolitical and domestic pressures compelled him to reconsider the KMT’s trajectory.
In the late 1970s, Taiwan faced an existential crisis. The US, under the administration of then-US president Richard Nixon, began normalizing relations with the People’s Republic of China (PRC), culminating in the US’ derecognition of Taiwan in 1979.
That diplomatic shift left Taiwan isolated in the international stage, prompting Chiang to pivot toward reforms that would secure the nation’s survival as a distinct political entity. Recognizing that the legitimacy of the KMT’s rule could no longer rest solely on authoritarian control, he initiated a gradual process of democratization.
Key reforms included the lifting of martial law in 1987, the legalization of opposition parties and the promotion of native Taiwanese leaders within the KMT. Those steps culminated in Taiwan’s full democratization in the 1990s under his successor, former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝).
Chiang’s pragmatic decision to relinquish authoritarian power underscores his recognition that long-term stability and prosperity required embracing democratic principles. His leadership set Taiwan on a path that transformed it into one of Asia’s most vibrant democracies.
The global political climate this year sharply contrasts with the optimism that defined the late 20th century. In 1989, as democratic movements surged worldwide, US political scientist Francis Fukuyama declared the “end of history,” positing that liberal democracy represented the pinnacle of political evolution. Today, that optimism feels misplaced.
Closed autocracies now outnumber liberal democracies for the first time in decades, recent studies have shown. Leaders such as Xi, Putin and Erdogan exemplify the resurgence of strongman politics.
Xi’s China has embraced an increasingly authoritarian model, with tightened control over civil society, aggressive suppression of dissent in Hong Kong and the persecution of Uyghurs in Xinjiang.
Putin’s Russia, emboldened by its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and escalation of the war in 2022, represents another face of modern autocracy — marked by nationalism, propaganda and centralized power.
Erdogan’s consolidation of power in Turkey through constitutional changes and crackdowns on political opponents reflects a similar drift toward authoritarianism in the guise of democracy.
Against that backdrop, Chiang’s legacy as a leader who dismantled authoritarianism from within is particularly striking. His actions challenge the pervasive narrative that autocratic rulers inevitably tighten their grip on power. Instead, Chiang demonstrated that even within repressive systems, leaders could choose to prioritize the greater good over personal or party dominance.
Chiang’s democratization efforts were not merely idealistic; they were rooted in pragmatic considerations.
By the 1980s, Taiwan’s rapid economic growth had created a burgeoning middle class demanding greater political participation. Additionally, diplomatic isolation necessitated a rebranding of Taiwan as a model of democracy — a move aimed at garnering international support in the face of PRC aggression.
Chiang’s approach was deliberate and cautious. He understood that abrupt changes could destabilize the nation, so he opted for incremental reforms. He permitted the formation of the Democratic Progressive Party in 1986, despite its technically illegal status at the time.
By lifting martial law in 1987, Chiang signaled a commitment to political liberalization, while maintaining a degree of control to ensure stability during the transition.
In staunch contrast, Xi’s consolidation of power through the abolition of term limits, Putin’s manipulation of Russia’s constitution to extend his rule, and Erdogan’s erosion of judicial independence and media freedoms highlight their prioritization of personal authority over institutional development.
Chiang’s belief in the universality of democracy remains relevant today. He envisioned Taiwan’s democratic transformation as a model for China, hoping that liberalization in Taiwan might inspire similar movements in China.
While that vision has yet to materialize, Taiwan’s success as a democratic society underscores the resilience of democratic ideals even in the face of authoritarian threats.
As Xi’s China intensifies its efforts to undermine Taiwan’s autonomy, the nation’s democratic identity strengthens its case for international support. Chiang’s reforms laid the foundation for that identity, proving that democratization can coexist with economic prosperity and geopolitical resilience.
In an era when authoritarianism is often justified as a means of ensuring stability, Chiang’s actions are a reminder that true stability arises from inclusive governance and respect for individual freedoms.
Chiang’s story serves as a counterpoint to the global drift toward autocracy, highlighting the importance of leadership that prioritizes the collective good over personal power. As the world grapples with the challenges posed by leaders such as Xi, Putin and Erdogan, Chiang’s example provides a roadmap for navigating the complexities of governance in a polarized and unpredictable age.
As we reflect on his legacy, we are reminded that the pursuit of democracy is not only a moral imperative, but also a pragmatic strategy for ensuring long-term stability and prosperity.
In a world increasingly defined by authoritarianism, Chiang’s story offers hope and inspiration for those who continue to champion the cause of freedom and human dignity.
Y. Tony Yang is an endowed professor and associate dean at George Washington University in Washington. He received support from a grant by the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation for International Scholarly Exchange to complete his doctoral degree at Harvard.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS