Max Weber is one of the most influential public intellectuals of the 20th century. His lecture “Politics as a Vocation,” delivered in 1919 and published in Max Weber’s Complete Writings on Academic and Political Vocations, examines the ethical responsibilities or what some might call the moral choices made by political leaders and public figures.
Weber said that there are three pre-eminent qualities that are decisive for a politician: passion, a feeling of responsibility and a sense of proportion.
Devotion to politics arises from and is sustained by passion. That means passion in the sense of matter-of-factness, of passionate devotion to a “cause.” It is not passion in the sense of “sterile excitation.” A crucial quality of a politician is the ability to exercise self-restraint.
Political actions involve not only convictions and values, but also consequences that could follow, including influences on others and the responsibilities they should bear.
Weber defined and elaborated the antithesis between the ethics of responsibility and the ethics of conviction. He said the latter is in the sense of self-righteousness that is fundamentally different from and irreconcilably opposed to the former. In other words, that is a realist approach to morality, striking a balance between values and reality.
Weber said those who see politics as a vocation should not only consider moral principles, but should also evaluate restraints and long-term consequences in reality when they negotiate.
To satisfy those two conditions, the most decisive psychological quality of a politician is their sense of proportion — the ability to let realities work upon themselves with inner concentration and calmness. That is their distance to things and others which is to forge warm passion and a cool sense of proportion together. Weber said that politics is made with the head, not with other parts of the body or spirit.
Weber’s teachings apply to the current recall movement.
The current struggles initiated by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party is damaging the whole country and the rights of Taiwanese. The situation would deteriorate if nothing is done to stop them.
Although the Democratic Progressive Party, the “Bluebird movement,” intellectuals and those affected by the opposition parties’ controversial amendments are furious, most people remain indifferent.
Recalling elected officials is a civil right, which is an issue that the government and the ruling party do not have any say in. However, those who are the most powerful bear the consequences. The battlefield is brutal.
The opposition parties would definitely fight back and wage a full-fledged war. The blame would be shifted to the pan-green camp. The war would last for another six months. What would the moderate voters who swing between the green camp and the blue camp think?
If successful, the recall movement would have a deterrent effect or, on the other hand, it could backfire. The political turmoil could intensify in the coming three years, which would make reconciliation difficult.
Therefore, people should remain calm to make observations and judgements, but that does not mean they should turn a blind eye to the situation or to pour cold water on the issue.
Their mission is to let people understand how this could damage the country and harm people’s rights. Taiwanese should also get to grips with public opinion.
The best option would be to precisely recall the most unpopular legislators, because the goal is to promote the movement and to yield an unexpectedly good result.
Lee Wen-chung is a former legislator.
Translated by Fion Khan
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS