Taiwan's imperfect democracy

Taiwan’s recent elections were mostly free, but not completely fair. There were built-in advantages for the KMT.

Taiwan last month concluded its fifth presidential election in a confirmation of the momentous transition to democracy that began in the 1990s under former President Lee Teng-hui. Since then, the island republic has been a beacon of democratic practices in Asia, and passed through two changes of power between political parties. Observers in the United States and other Western countries routinely and justifiably praise the island and its people for their democratic achievements.

Taiwan’s democracy is indeed vibrant and often colorful and rambunctious. Yet a closer look reveals built-in hurdles and impediments that tilt the playing field heavily in favor of the ruling Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). These obstacles strongly work against a healthy public discourse and fair competition, and especially against the opposition Democratic Progressive Party and other smaller parties that would like to have their voices heard.

A significant reason for this imbalance is the island’s lingering authoritarian past and stalled agenda for political reform. The KMT ruled Taiwan as a one-party state under martial law from the late 1940s until 1987. Many vested interests in the administrative system, military, educational institutions and the press still favor the KMT. Despite reforms during the 1990s, the KMT retains political influence over key institutions, including the police, military and judiciary.

In addition, the KMT’s large holdings of financial assets, corporations, and media outlets give it an abundance of resources, allowing it unrivaled capacity to spread its message and influence voters with advantages not tolerated by more mature democracies. In the election campaign just passed, for instance, the KMT out-spent the DPP by more than 10:1. Drained of support from Taiwan’s business community by pressures from the KMT and especially from China, the DPP had to rely on numerous small donations from the grassroots.

This asymmetry in resources is troubling since electoral campaigns are now waged heavily through TV advertising, and to a lesser extent in buying votes for cash, especially in the 73 district legislative races. While vote-buying is a criminal offense, often prosecuted, there were numerous reports in this election that the practice continues.

As Finnish political scientist Mikael Mattlin argues in his recent book, Politicized Society: The Long Shadow of Taiwan's One-Party Legacy,many aspects of Taiwan’s democratic consolidation remain incomplete. The book describes how Taiwan possesses the veneer of democracy, but shows that many formal and informal political structures are essentially unchanged since the martial law era. These include popular values and attitudes toward power that social scientists say make up a society’s political culture.

In a new twist, this year’s presidential and legislative elections saw a myriad of ways in which China is learning to influence voters on the island. These include overt statements by Chinese officials that Taiwanese needed to vote for the “right” candidate, to corporate business leaders influencing their workers and urging the public to support the government’s policies. One of those businessmen also happens to own an influential publishing conglomerate.

The basic scare tactic used by China and its allies was that a vote for the DPP and its candidate would be a vote for “instability.” That would of course be bad for business, and scare voters away from Tsai. During the campaign, Tsai emphasized that she would work for stable relations with China, but in ways that would not discount Taiwan’s sovereignty and democracy. Her message was undercut by a news media generally attuned to flogging the doubts and uncertainties about her candidacy coming from KMT and Chinese sources.

A delegation from the International Committee for Fair Elections in Taiwan has also concluded that this year’s elections were mostly free, but only partly fair. The group of 24 election observers from Europe, Canada, the United States and Japan was led by former Alaska governor and U.S. Senator, Frank Murkowski.

The challenges for democracy everywhere are enormous. The Taiwanese know this better than anyone. They know, too, that their own experiment with democratic governance is only the beginning of a long and rewarding journey. That journey can only be successful, however, if the hurdles and impediments are cleared away.

For the United States and other Western democracies it’s important to ensure that Taiwan’s democracy retains a level playing field. Only in this way can the Taiwanese people make a fully free choice on their future and become a true beacon for democracy in East Asia, including China.

Julian Baum is a former Taiwan correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review. Gerrit van der Wees is a former Dutch diplomat who presently serves as editor of Taiwan Communiqué, a publication of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs in Washington. D.C.

Photo Credit: Gerrit van der Wees

 

美媒體人包竹廉：台灣選舉機制 有利藍營 〔駐美特派員曹郁芬／華府報導〕前遠東經濟評論台北分社社長包竹廉在七日出刊的「外交官」雜誌上撰文指出，台灣剛結束的總統大選，其實反映台灣仍是一個對國民黨極為有利的競賽場子。 包竹廉表示，美國循例稱讚台灣的民主成就，雖然台灣的民主確實多彩多姿和充滿活力，但細看許多內建的機制和遊戲規則其實都有利國民黨。這些障礙對形塑一場健康而公平競爭，尤其是民進黨和其他小黨是嚴重阻礙。 軍警司法 國民黨仍有影響力 對台灣政治有深入了解的包竹廉說，台灣過去的威權體制和政治改革的延滯是造成這種不平衡的主因。國民黨一黨獨大多年，包括行政、軍隊、教育，甚至媒體都偏向國民黨。即使經過九○年代的改革，國民黨在軍警和司法機構仍有政治影響力。 此外，國民黨仍有大量黨產和媒體，給予國民黨在一個成熟的民主社會不可能出現的優勢。例如國民黨的競選支出與民進黨是十比一。在企業捐款部分，受國民黨、甚至中國壓縮的情況下，民進黨只能依賴民眾的小額捐款。這種不對稱的現象在一個越來越依賴電視廣告的選舉中更加令人困擾。此外，買票雖然會被起訴，但有關買票的傳聞和報導仍持續，台灣的民主鞏固並未完成。 他表示，中國在今年的大選中也開始懂得影響台灣選民。例如中國官員提醒台灣民眾要選出「正確」的候選人，要台商企業負責人影響員工投票行為或支持政府政策，其中一位台商正好擁有極具影響力的媒體集團。