Taiwan Today

Democratization has moved at an exceptionally rapid pace since martial law was lifted in July 1987. But it takes time for sweeping changes to take root. For example, the acceptance of political norms governing interest groups and party competition is es­sential to the evolution of greater respect for the rule of law and civic virtues.

To assess the progress made thus far in consolidating recent democratic gains, FCR asked several professors to discuss the ROC's current political development. Partic­ipants were Dr. Yang Tai-shuenn, an associate professor in the Department of Political Science, National Cheng chi University; Dr. Lin Chia-cheng, a professor in the Department of Sociology, Soochow University; Dr. Chen I-hsin, an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of American Studies, Tamkang University; and Dr. Lu Ya-li, a professor in the Department of Political Science, National Taiwan University.

The discussion was hosted by Dr. Jiang Ping-lun, editor-in-chief of FCR. Excerpts follow:

Jiang Ping-lun: It has been more than three years since martial law was lifted in July 1987. But if we consider full democracy as our ultimate goal, the ROC on Taiwan is still in a transitional stage. A host of problems have arisen, and many still await judicious resolution. Although we have been working very hard on liberalization, democratic measures have not yet been fully implemented. For example, we have yet to hold popular elections for all the members of the central representative organs [the Legislative Yuan, Control Yuan, and National Assembly] and for the mayors of the two special municipalities of Taipei and Kaohsiung.

Many social and. political conflicts have appeared during this transitional period. Some people maintain that those are the products of an immature political culture which contrasts sharply with Taiwan's more mature economic and social conditions. Such a phenomenon natural­ly leads to instability.

Although Taiwan has been under one-party rule for a long time, it is not impossible to change the situation. In fact it has already changed substantially. But in the process we have experienced all kinds of difficulties. One of the most serious is the conflict between people ad­vocating reunification with mainland China and those advocating Taiwan independence.

Today, we want to assess the process of democratization over the past three years, and discuss where we are going from here.

Yang Tai-shuenn: Two of the most important political events since the lifting of martial law have been the December 1989 elections for members of the Legislative Yuan and various local offices and the March 1990 presidential election. For the first time in Chinese history, there was two-party competition, although not on an equal footing. The elections revealed some drawbacks in the one-party system of the past and also indicated areas where the government should improve in the future. As a result the elections were very significant in the course of the ROC's democratization.

The political events during this six­-month period also helped bring about certain fundamental changes within the ruling Kuomintang (KMT) party itself. Party factions now dare to challenge the authority of the party leadership. Clearly, the KMT has to become even more democratic in order to better sense the pulse of society. Democratization within the KMT has also had major impact on the democratization of society as a whole.

There have also been important legal developments since the lifting of martial law, such as the Civic Organiza­tions Law [effective since January 19891. But, to me, such a development does not carry much substantive meaning. It only has symbolic meaning because before the lifting of martial law, many government measures were actually brought about by the rapid changes in our society. Take the Law on Assemblies and Parades [also effective since January 1989] as an example. Before the lifting of martial law, street demonstrations were rather common even though they were illegal, and the government could not do anything about them.

Lin Chia-cheng: Political development over the past three years or so can be analyzed from five perspectives. First is constitutional reform. This has become a particularly important topic for discussion during the past year. It includes such fundamental questions as human rights and the distribution of authority among central and local governments. For the first time since 1949, when the central government moved to Taiwan from the mainland, such problems were brought up for public discussion during the National Affairs Conference in June [1990]

Second is the development of party politics. The Civic Organizations Law makes the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) a legitimate political power. During the central and local elections in December 1989, the DPP won 8 percent more support than they did in the previous elections. Even though we have made overall progress in the development of party politics, there are still many problems. For example, both the KMT and the DPP seem to be suffering from factionalism.

Third is the growing power of the public. The lifting of martial law can be considered a result of public pressure. Also, because of the lifting of martial law, our society has been able to develop more social and political maturity. This is illustrated by the proliferation of new groups made up of women, college students and professors, laborers, and environmentalists.

Fourth is human rights. The lifting of martial law ensures better protection of human rights, such as the freedoms of speech and assembly. The lifting of the ban on new newspapers in January 1988 has enabled the power of the Fourth Estate to grow gradually. In May 1989, the government also pardoned a number of dissenters who had been imprisoned because of the riots in Kaohsiung in 1979.

Fifth is our parliamentary structure. In 1969, supplementary legislators began to enter the Legislative Yuan. By 1980, their number had increased significantly. The elections in December 1989 generated 101 locally elected new legislators, and 20 of them were DPP members. The continued increase of legislators elected in Taiwan and legislators from the DPP has changed the structure and operation of the Legislative Yuan.

Chen I-hsin: The most important steps taken in the process of democratization since the lifting of martial law include the Civic Organizations Law, the revised Public Officials Election and Recall Law, and the Law on the Voluntary Retirement of Senior Parliamentarians. The Civic Organizations Law takes party politics along a more normal path. The Election and Recall Law introduced several new and important concepts, such as political contributions and government subsidies to candidates for election campaigns. Although the Law on Senior Parliamentarians has some defects, it has been accepted by both the DPP and KMT.

Another important step was taken by both the KMT and DPP when they chose to select party nominees by adopting an American-style primaries system in 1989. This has made the nomination process clearer, and it indicates significant progress in our election history.

In addition, the National Affairs Conference in June 1990 gave the public a good lesson in democracy. The media covered the conference in great detail. Because the leaders of the DPP were invited to attend, the two major parties were able to develop a healthier relationship. This has had a positive impact on our political development.

Lu Ya-li: Over the past four decades, we have accomplished more in the area of public participation in politics than in the maturation of the competitive election process. While political participation in Taiwan is very inclusive—in the sense that there is not any meaningful discrimination in terms of sex, race, or religion—the election process requires further development.

Elections in Taiwan became part of the political process quite early, in 1946, soon after the Republic of China recovered Taiwan from Japanese colonial rule. But today, some unreasonable carry-overs still exist. For example, members of the Legislative Yuan, the Control Yuan, and the National Assembly who were elected in 1947 on the mainland continue to hold a majority of the seats in their respective parliamentary bodies.

Moreover, elections continue to be held for people representing specific occupations [such as farmers and businessmen], and representatives for overseas Chinese are still appointed by the president. High local offices, such as the governor of the Taiwan provincial gov­ernment and the mayors of the special municipalities of Taipei and Kaohsiung, are still appointed instead of elected. Even lower positions such as district chiefs in the two special municipalities are appointed by the mayor of Taipei. This shows that the scope of elections remains limited.

But there have been some significant changes. For example, the election of the magistrate of Taipei county, which has a population of 3 million, has always been considered one of the most important elections in Taiwan. In December 1989, the KMT lost the election by only 6,000 votes. It would have been easy for the KMT to win the election by using underhanded methods, but it did not do so. The KMT played the game fairly.

One of the most important areas of progress over recent years has been the cultivation of a modern political culture. That is, the public, government officials, and the ruling party have gradually developed new concepts about politics. Take government authorities for example. They are now more aware of the importance of their public images, and they take public opinion seriously when making policy.

But when we talk about democratiza­tion, we should be careful to separate it from the idea of power proliferation. In many developing countries, these two often take place simultaneously, especially during initial stages of political development. This means that the government is unable to control the political situation. Uncontrollability is not democratization. Such a problem is not yet serious in Taiwan, but we must pay attention to its potential development.

Jiang: Unlike in Western societies such as the United States, in Taiwan the rule of law has not been fully developed. Although we encourage political participation by all the people, they generally lack foresight and only care about personal interests or the interests of small groups. Under such circumstances, society is easily destabilized. But in a democratic society, even the interest of small groups should be governed by general interests.

Industrialization inevitably leads to social pluralization, and pluralization of interests helps bring about the decentralization of power. But pluralization can also bring about injustice and chaos if there is an absence of norms governing competition in the political process. Everything from pursuing personal or group interests to campaign electioneering should be governed by appropriate norms.

Currently, it seems that we have problems because of an absence of standard norms of political action. Too many people think that those who have loud voices or are able to organize street demonstrations are smart people. Therefore, one of the most important tasks for society is to develop greater political maturity. This is true for the public as much as for the legislators.

Lu: In fact, some disgusting events have occurred over the past few years. Take the actions of veterans for example. In April [1990], some of them surrounded the Legislative Yuan and forced the legislators to pass a bill concerning their own special interests. Such behavior set a very bad precedent in the course of Taiwan's movement toward full democracy. But strangely enough, few people have made critical analyses of such happen­ings. This is an example of what Dr. Jiang said earlier about the lack of political norms in our society.

The activities of interest groups are also worrisome. Again, take the Legislative Yuan as an example. No one really knows about the complex relationships between interest groups and the various members of the Legislative Yuan. The way a great number of legislators play with politics is dangerous. For instance, some of them have made trips to the mainland. They intended to gain publicity for themselves, and they think they can force the government to take action. But the members of the Legislative Yuan should take the interests of the whole into consideration.

Right now we are still in a state of confrontation with the mainland, but what some members of the Legislative Yuan and some of our businessmen have done is disgusting. They lack the so-called "civic virtue." One thing that holds a society together is a strong concept of citizenship, and one of the most serious problems in Taiwan today is that the groups that have no sense of civic virtue are the most successful.

To solve this problem, we must have high-ranking government officials with principles—people who can refuse unreasonable demands from such groups. We also need a high-principled media. The public should be well-informed so that they can develop critical minds. Otherwise, a society will only look strong, but it will have a weak soul. Not only businessmen, but the general public as well should have a sense of citizenship.

Yang: It is true that people here lack the concept of civic virtue. Of course, it has something to do with our culture. As early as the twelfth century, the West began to develop this concept. But we began our democratic system only in the twentieth century. We need to work harder in this area. We must also cultivate the concept of the rule of law. Without it, various interest groups compete with one another, and vicious rivalry occurs. This is counterproductive.

Whenever scholars or the people in the media talk about the rule of law, they usually refer to government officials. But such a problem does not only exist in the higher political circles. Our society is full of people who are accustomed to ignoring the laws. We should correct this situation, and could start from small areas such as insisting that people observe traffic regulations.

Furthermore, it is necessary to ensure that competition is open to public scrutiny. Otherwise, special interest groups will make private deals and the public will be victimized. Along this line, I also hope that the government will allow the establishment of more tele­vision and radio stations. This way, the media will strive harder and gain more latitude in reporting on social and political matters. In this way, the public and the media can shoulder more responsi­bility for assessing government actions.

Since the concept of rule of law is not fully developed, and the Legislative Yuan does not yet fully reflect popular will, some groups with special economic interests have been able to take advan­tage of this vacuum and seek gains for themselves. This was obvious in the December 1989 elections. A great deal of money was involved. To improve such a situation, the ruling party must further cultivate a sense of democracy, and it should be the first to show respect for rule of law.

Lin: I should point out that some public interest groups have been doing positive things, including those groups concerned with issues such as child prostitution, environmental protection, anti-smoking, and consumer protection. In a politically pluralistic society, interest groups of different kinds should exist at the same time. Even private or special interest groups such as labor unions have value. But as all groups promote their concerns, they should adhere to certain norms of action.

In the area of party politics, the re-election of representatives in our parliamentary bodies is of great significance. Only through such a re-election will the representatives be responsive to the individuals and groups in their constituencies. It is true that the development of political culture is important, but the structure of constitutional rule is even more important. Discussions of political matters should also cover the relation­ ship between the administrative and legislative branches, and determine whether we should follow the parliamentary or presidential system of government. We should thoroughly review the relationship between individuals and government, the roles of interest groups and political parties, and the relationship between parliament and the public. Such a review is a form of social engineering that is necessary in our current stage of democratization.

Taiwan is not an uneducated society. Our educational level is high and our per capita income is around US$8,000, so I am not that pessimistic about social and political instability.

Chen: In the course of developing full democracy, it is very important to be able to tolerate dissenting voices. There should be more TV and radio channels, and government-run newspapers should carry vote records of important legislative bills so that issue-oriented voters can find out how their representatives are voting.

Jiang: Party politics can be discussed from the perspectives of internal relations within parties and relationships be­tween parties. For example, the DPP currently has two factions, the Formosa faction and the New Tide faction. As a result, the DPP has had difficulties in projecting a coherent image. Some people say that the factional split of the DPP makes it seem like two parties.

As for the KMT, in the past it was a revolutionary party, but now it is striving for internal democratization. To develop itself like the parties in Japan or the United Kingdom, the ruling party will gradually move its elected parliamentar­ians to the center of its power. This is a big change. The quality of the KMT will therefore come to depend on the quality of its elected parliamentarians.

As for relationships between parties, the operations of a two-party system should be rooted in fair competition be­tween clearly stated positions based on different ideologies or policies. But the situation is not like this. The KMT and the DPP are not divided on their views regarding social or economic issues. Instead, they are divided on the issue of na­tional identity, that is, whether to pursue reunification with the mainland or to move to an independent state of Taiwan. Is this a healthy development for a nascent two-party system?

Chen: We have the potential to develop a healthy two-party system, but we still lack the qualities to operate such a system. Because we are not well-versed in the art of compromise, we are often unable to resolve differing opinions.

I think it is possible for Taiwan to produce a creative opposition party, but not a loyal opposition party. This is because the issue of national identity is central to the competition between the par­ ties. The debate on whether Taiwan should be independent or be reunified with mainland China will continue. Besides, it seems that over the years we have developed an island-oriented political culture. Narrow-minded people here only care about things happening on this island and neglect what is going on in other parts of the world.

Yang: Recent political experience proves that the KMT no longer dominates Taiwan's human and financial resources. The impressive extent of the resources possessed by private individuals appeared during the December 1989 elections. Moreover, since the beginning of this year, many private foundations have been established, especially ones organized by members of the ruling party. They have gradually become aware of the importance of absorbing resources from outside the party to assist their political careers. If this situation continues, then I think a separate political force might develop out of the KMT.

As for the DPP, from its early stage of being tangwai [literally, "outside the ruling party," when the DPP was still technically illegal] up to the present, one of its biggest problems is that it does not have positive policies. It only has a negative policy—Taiwan independence. If the DPP can make a breakthrough in the development of positive policies, it will be able to win some support away from the KMT. When that happens, there will be a sound, two-party competitive situation.

Lin: I do not see any reason for the DPP to split into two parties. There is no serious difference or conflict between its two factions, so the party could still represent a strong opposition. The reason why there has been a debate on Taiwan independence or reunification with the mainland between the two factions of the DPP is because of the threat from the Chinese Communists. Even though they bring up the matter very often, DPP members do not ask for immediate independence or unification.

Lu: When we discuss party politics, we cannot avoid the key topic of what divides one party platform from another. In the DPP, the most salient point in their platform is tied to the tensions be­tween the so-called "mainlanders" [those who followed the central government to Taiwan in 1949 and their descendants] and "Taiwanese" [people who moved to Taiwan from mainland coasts earlier than 1949 and their descendants]. In the early years after the central government moved to Taiwan, all high-ranking government officials were from the mainland. Members of the Legislative Yuan, Control Yuan, and the National Assembly were also all from the mainland.

The DPP represents Taiwanese forces. Although it does have several mainland members, they play minor roles. Within the DPP, its New Tide faction members are more radical and favor Taiwan independence. Such an advocacy can be seen as a result of the problem of mainlander- Taiwanese tensions. Even though the Formosa faction does not advocate independence, the tensions between mainlanders and Taiwanese is still an emotional issue. For example, its members are asked to speak Taiwanese during party meetings. They do this to show their dissatisfaction with the past political environment when a great majority of the high-level government officials were from the mainland.

Whenever a new political power is developed, it must try to find a significant point of departure from other par­ties in its platform. One of the difficulties the DPP now faces is that the ruling KMT has been pushing forward on its program of "indigenization." President Lee has promoted many Taiwanese to important positions. Under such circumstances, the DPP can no longer take the issue of mainlander-Taiwanese tensions as its raison d'être.

In the future, when tensions between mainlanders and Taiwanese gradually disappear, I have hopes that we will develop a party system where each party will make economic interests a major plank in its platform. Only with this type of development, which also eliminates the emotional tensions between mainlanders and Taiwanese, can there be hope for sound political development in Taiwan.