My boring answer revolves around two. First, our institutions (many are legacies from the authoritarian era) are designed around a unitary executive. Note how our Legislators lack both the oversight power in Madisonian systems (the Control Yuan after a few years can have zero opposition party members, as currently) nor the power to take down erratic government as in Westminster systems (yes, the Premier can lose a no-confidence vote but this is meaningless as evidenced by there have been zero such attempts even when the parliament is held by the opposition). In our system the President holds all the power but is unaccountable to the other branches while the Premier is held accountable but doesn't have real power to set policy (I joke that this is inspired by Chinese Imperial system where the Emperor often kills the Grand Chancellor as a scapegoat when things go wrong). Additionally compare and contrast with how there are no serious discussion to close down OAN or Newsmax in the US, despite them engaging in much crazier version of fake news, not because Americans all hold deep liberal principles (many illiberal Leftists wish to control speech nowadays) but that on a practical level, such an action is logistically impossible with how FCC is constituted (and even if they could manage for a few months, people expect the closure would be stuck down by any judge even in today's partisan climate). The opposite is true with our institutions.
The second is generally weak-minded politicians in both parties. Part of this is historical--both parties are Leninist are thus the leader's power is absolute, but you wonder when seeing 高嘉瑜 or 王世堅 speaking out for popular opinions instead of toeing the party line, why there aren't more politicians who aren't cowards clinging to their leader. Not coincidentally both Kao and Wang are not members of any faction within the DPP, thus when they are attacked other party members often pile on; but OTOH they don't need to return the favor with unquestioning support for in-groups either. I dare say our politicians act more like those in the US's Gilded Ages, where the primary motivation is currying favors and monetary gains, and the rhetoric are for only electoral purposes instead of reflection of any firm principle (thus as you point out, can be readily abandoned when inconvenient); you see this also in the way our party factions are organized around personality rather than policies. I'm pessimistic it will become any better--now that the US is no longer the world's only superpower there are going to be people saying, well, the autocratic models work as well. As we are starting to discover with America's retrenchment, from Hungary to Israel to India to Turkey, small-d democrats where liberal democracy is non-negotiable is in the minority.
Essentially, the judicial branch is the only one the ruling party is currently having trouble to effectively control. People often lament how the judges and prosecutors disregard the people's will, but the only reason our tough "fake news" speech laws haven't actually result in many convictions are because of those in the judiciary who believe in liberal principles much more deeply than the general public. Though deploying the prosecutorial power to harass unfavorable speech is enough to silence much of them, even if actual jailing is unlikely, as most people choose to self-censor to avoid the legal trouble...
Or, to rephrase in this context, Taiwan needs to "be cool and fashionable" to buck identity politics, and for some reason they can't capture Hongkongers to turn the tide. And yes HK is also designed around unitary executive but big-D democracy consistently wins big til 2019.
Good points expressed with your typical flair. It is sad that Taiwan politcs has been exclusively defined by identity politics in one form or another since the complete democratic transition in the later 90s. So many important social and economic issues have fallen by the wayside, or have simply been edged out.
Interesting read, sad to see the sorry state of Taiwanese politics but I guess that is the growing pains of transitioning from authoritarianism to Democracy. This kind of post-democratizing polarization always seems to be a thing from the looks of it. Read a book on it once. As a Chinese person who has become a US citizen five years ago, Taiwan has attracted my interest more so than before. Thank you.
Was Ma's desire to import racto-meat exactly the same as what's going on now? I've heard a counterargument that that was just for cows and that the KMT would've set limits on the amount of ractopamine. I also can't tell if these are relevant details, either!
My boring answer revolves around two. First, our institutions (many are legacies from the authoritarian era) are designed around a unitary executive. Note how our Legislators lack both the oversight power in Madisonian systems (the Control Yuan after a few years can have zero opposition party members, as currently) nor the power to take down erratic government as in Westminster systems (yes, the Premier can lose a no-confidence vote but this is meaningless as evidenced by there have been zero such attempts even when the parliament is held by the opposition). In our system the President holds all the power but is unaccountable to the other branches while the Premier is held accountable but doesn't have real power to set policy (I joke that this is inspired by Chinese Imperial system where the Emperor often kills the Grand Chancellor as a scapegoat when things go wrong). Additionally compare and contrast with how there are no serious discussion to close down OAN or Newsmax in the US, despite them engaging in much crazier version of fake news, not because Americans all hold deep liberal principles (many illiberal Leftists wish to control speech nowadays) but that on a practical level, such an action is logistically impossible with how FCC is constituted (and even if they could manage for a few months, people expect the closure would be stuck down by any judge even in today's partisan climate). The opposite is true with our institutions.
The second is generally weak-minded politicians in both parties. Part of this is historical--both parties are Leninist are thus the leader's power is absolute, but you wonder when seeing 高嘉瑜 or 王世堅 speaking out for popular opinions instead of toeing the party line, why there aren't more politicians who aren't cowards clinging to their leader. Not coincidentally both Kao and Wang are not members of any faction within the DPP, thus when they are attacked other party members often pile on; but OTOH they don't need to return the favor with unquestioning support for in-groups either. I dare say our politicians act more like those in the US's Gilded Ages, where the primary motivation is currying favors and monetary gains, and the rhetoric are for only electoral purposes instead of reflection of any firm principle (thus as you point out, can be readily abandoned when inconvenient); you see this also in the way our party factions are organized around personality rather than policies. I'm pessimistic it will become any better--now that the US is no longer the world's only superpower there are going to be people saying, well, the autocratic models work as well. As we are starting to discover with America's retrenchment, from Hungary to Israel to India to Turkey, small-d democrats where liberal democracy is non-negotiable is in the minority.
Essentially, the judicial branch is the only one the ruling party is currently having trouble to effectively control. People often lament how the judges and prosecutors disregard the people's will, but the only reason our tough "fake news" speech laws haven't actually result in many convictions are because of those in the judiciary who believe in liberal principles much more deeply than the general public. Though deploying the prosecutorial power to harass unfavorable speech is enough to silence much of them, even if actual jailing is unlikely, as most people choose to self-censor to avoid the legal trouble...
"China needs a cultural aristocracy" from a US Diplomat's child. https://graymirror.substack.com/p/effective-altruism-and-xi-jinping?s=r
Or, to rephrase in this context, Taiwan needs to "be cool and fashionable" to buck identity politics, and for some reason they can't capture Hongkongers to turn the tide. And yes HK is also designed around unitary executive but big-D democracy consistently wins big til 2019.
Good points expressed with your typical flair. It is sad that Taiwan politcs has been exclusively defined by identity politics in one form or another since the complete democratic transition in the later 90s. So many important social and economic issues have fallen by the wayside, or have simply been edged out.
Interesting read, sad to see the sorry state of Taiwanese politics but I guess that is the growing pains of transitioning from authoritarianism to Democracy. This kind of post-democratizing polarization always seems to be a thing from the looks of it. Read a book on it once. As a Chinese person who has become a US citizen five years ago, Taiwan has attracted my interest more so than before. Thank you.
I love your writing and am so fascinated by Taiwan - I would be thrilled to speak with you on my podcast!
Certainly, Ryan! Email me at angelica.oung@gmail.com
Was Ma's desire to import racto-meat exactly the same as what's going on now? I've heard a counterargument that that was just for cows and that the KMT would've set limits on the amount of ractopamine. I also can't tell if these are relevant details, either!