Mainlanders love to poke fun at Taiwan politics as chaotic, corrupt, and living proof that full democracy is somehow incompatible with “Chinese culture.” (Of course when I suggest the corollary to their theory–that only Westerners and Japanese seem “culturally able” to handle free elections–they usually backtrack a little bit, but I digress.)
It’s worth remembering that in the United States, the birth of democracy was painful at best and not without its moments of chaos and legislative fisticuffs.
Compare these two images:
A 2005 scrap on the floor of the Taiwan Parliament between DPP and KMT supporters over the hot button issue of an independent National Communications Commission.
———————————————-
Cartoon depicting Matthew Lyon, Republican from Vermont (fire tongs), going toe-to-toe with Federalist Roger Griswold from Connecticut (cane) in a pitched battle on the floor of the US Congress, 1798.
———————————————-
Taiwan has been a democracy for less than twenty years. I think it’s time we cut them some slack.
9 responses so far ↓
1 Chris // May 7, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Since we’re on the subject, throw in the caning of Charles Sumner.
I have to say, though, after spending any time in front of C-Span, there’s part of me wishing debates went that way more often. It would certainly liven up presidential elections.
2 無名 - wu ming // May 8, 2007 at 12:59 am
better a fistfight than polite unanimity while the country goes pear-shaped.
what the chinese critics of taiwan really dislike isn’t the fisticuffs, so much as the iniquity of forcing the leaders to go out among the great unwashed and shake hands and kiss babies. i mean, people of high suzhi debasing themselves in front of people of low suzhi. what is the world coming to, when the people think they’re equal to the government?
on a side note, i shook more politicians’ hands in one year in taipei than i have in my whole life in the states. kinda glad we don’t have those loudspeaker election ad vans crawling through town every election cycle, though. it gets on one’s nerves after a while.
3 Michael Turton // May 8, 2007 at 6:38 am
Man, I hate those sound trucks…
I think it should also be pointed out that the fisticuffs have a deeper purpose. For example, a DPP legislator last year was lambasted in the world press for eating a bill and putting a stop to it. Nobody asked why she did it, though. It seems the global media is content to report the surfaces of things, without attempting to understand why things happen.
4 Feiren // May 8, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Your point about the parallels with early American democracy are well-taken, and is probably one that is appropriate to be making to Chinese critics of Taiwanese democracy.
But this has been an excuse for too long in Taiwan. The election bill that they are fighting over is deeply wrong, even unjust, and almost certainly unconstitutional. Still, the KMT-led alliance has a majority and the DPP minority needs to live with that and let the legislative process go forward without resorting to grandstanding or scrums that make Taiwan look ridiculous internationally.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s when the 10,000 year legislature was still enthroned, fighting the legislature was arguably a legitimate protest by representatives of the disenfranchised majority. That time is long past, and the DPP should, after having made its case inside and outside the legislature, allow the bill to pass and let the courts decide.
5 jane tse // May 11, 2007 at 8:33 am
Representative democracy is a demonstration of modernity in which people use peaceful discussion to achieve a consensus for legislation in a civilized way. Fistcuff is uncivilize. If the rule of law is one backbone of democracy, legislators fighting should have broken the law. Shouldn’t these legislators be treated equally as the majority public in front of the law?
6 jane tse // May 11, 2007 at 8:46 am
If the KMT agreed to transfer their monopolized ruling power to a popularily elected Chen Shui Bian peacefully, DPP legislators should admit that they don’t have a majority in the Legislative Yuan is a popular choice. They ought to marshal popular support to affect the legislation rather than using violence to block the legislation. This is the rule of the game. What deep purpose can we have to eating the bill? Taiwan is under DPP rule and has transformed itself into a democracy and the overall dominance of Chen Shui Bian government in many political aspects. We cannot suggest that the DPP is under oppression of the KMT as if it is before their first election. What I can see is a hysterical legislator, who has forgotten her role and responsibility. If we continue to justify violence,strategem, sub-ethnic division, I cannot see how Taiwan can consolidate their democracy.
7 無名 - wu ming // May 12, 2007 at 12:24 am
democracy thrives upon division, it’s the whole point of competitive elections. while fisticuffs are less preferable than talking things out, generally, democracy is meant to be chaotic, messy, and generally reflective of the diverse and con flicted electorates that produces it. if you do not like the manner of the politicians, the solution is to work for a more enlightened electorate.
8 R2K // May 12, 2007 at 6:23 am
: )
9 jane tse // Nov 2, 2008 at 1:39 pm
It is wrong, democracy is not about conflicts. Conflict is only a law of nature, the primitive behaviour of human beings. Democracy is a civilized political system, in which political leaders have the duty and responsibility to compromise a mechanism for conflict resolution within the legal framework of the democratic system. Before such a mechanism on the peaceful resolution of conflicting interest, the democracy is not consolidated, which is the democracy might not be able to survive.
Leave a Comment