Thursday, April 24, 2008

Those Choosy Voters in Our Maturing Democracy

Taiwan Journal hosts a commentary by David Lorenzo of Virginia Wesleyan on how the election confirms Taiwan's maturing democracy. This article describes what has become the new, and very widespread CW:

Taiwan's recent presidential election did more than just determine the future of its executive branch and signal future directions in policy with China. It also underlined the growth and maturation of Taiwan's democracy and revealed important aspects of Taiwan's democratic conception.

Why are we so mature? Lorenzo follows the CW in saying that it shows that Taiwanese are willing to throw leaders out when things go wrong:

This formula appears to be the concept of democracy people on Taiwan embrace: democracy is the election of leaders who make policy decisions. Leaders are then held accountable for their policies and re-elected if successful and voted out of office if they fail.

Bracketing discussion of the Presidential level, let's look at the legislature. Are people willing to toss out the leaders? Clearly not -- the KMT and its allied parties have controlled the legislature after each and every election since the KMT set up its government-in-exile here in 1949. At the local level, the town councils are overwhelmingly KMT, and the township and village chiefs, and the neighborhood and precinct captains, are also overwhelmingly KMT. At those separate levels, it has basically been that way since the KMT set up its government in exile here. Are the people willing to "throw the bastards out?" Nope. Lorenzo's claim that Taiwanese hold politicians accountable for their policies is unsupportable -- the KMT and its allies have been a disaster for the last eight years in the legislature, but they were voted in by a comfortable margin in the most recent election.

The apparent exceptions to the unwillingness of the people to remove one party when it is a failure were the two presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, and the county chief elections, where DPP and KMT politicians have traded places several times in several counties.

Looking at the level of presidential elections, was the public really willing to "throw the bastards out?" In 2000 over 60% of the populace voted Blue -- Chen got elected by a minority. The 2004 election represents the only major election in which Greens outpolled Blues -- and if the KMT had run Ma in '04, they probably would have won then too. So stupid was the choice of Lien Chan that I have a good friend who argues the KMT lost the election on purpose so that it could complete a thorough discrediting and crushing of the DPP.

In other words, if you step past the rhetoric and look at history, there is little or no support for the CW claim that the public judges on policies and is willing to toss politicians out when they don't perform on policy....

The opposite of this is also true: successful policy implementation should result in increased prospects for electoral success, but that is not the case here in Taiwan. Consider -- after Chen Shui-bian cleaned up Taipei and made it into the city it is today, he was immediately tossed out for an unproven KMT politician with no experience of local government. Similarly the DPP's Chen Chu won Kaohsiung by a razor thin margin in the last election even though the previous DPP mayor, Frank Hsieh, had done a fantastic job.

And do you agree with this statement below? With Ma soon to be in power?

A maturing democracy does not entail the perfection of the political system, but this election demonstrates that Taiwan's democratic system has a secure and bright future.

I sure hope so....

12 comments:

skiingkow said...

.
.
.
This guy is an associate professor of political science? And he can't see any of the glaring neon-flashing warning signs in the last 4 years that indicate that the opposite conclusion is probably true?

Wow. Just, wow!

He should quit his day job and become a member of the corporate media, full-time.
.
.
.

Richard said...

I'm really split on this. In one way, the people of Taiwan did indeed take control and vote for their future. You mentioned that although they vote out presidents when they have not done well, they don't seem to vote out leaders at the legislative level. Well, that's true in America as well. Most of the people in America are so unsatisfied with the Bush presidency and they've wanted to impeach him and what not. But, not many realize that over the past 2 years, a democratic controlled congress has basically done nothing as well to improve the situation. The economy has continued to slide, continual funding for troops in Iraq, no guts to impeach Bush (although it's pretty meaningless), and the Patriot Act is still in place (although I'm for the PAct).

Anyways, my point is the leader at the very top will always take the hit. But back to the question, I feel at this point we really can't call it either way. Ma has been on both sides of the fence, starting out blue, then moving towards the green as the elections drew near, and now drawing back toward the middle again. The decisions that Ma actually makes when he is in office will determine if Taiwan's democracy has actually moved forward, or at least not moved backwards. And as a DPP, I know it is very hard to understand how it is even possible that a KMT LY and executive office is a step forward in democracy, but time shall see.

I'm really looking forward to the next presidential elections in 4 years. I think that will be the true test of democracy because I'm sure Ma will disappoint many because of the number of promises he made, and will not be able to keep. Will Taiwan be able to vote him out then?

阿牛 said...

It seems to me the rubrics people are using for each office are entirely different. For example, in reality, the president is far less powerful than the legislature. And yet because the presidential office has one face on it, and because of it's historic strength, it gets a lot more attention than the legislature as a whole.

And people vote for legislators based on pork, guanxi, and to some very small degree, professionalism.

But things that would end an American's political career don't even slow down legislators here. It's amazing.

I think 2012 will in fact be a huge and interesting test. I think it's fair to say Ma isn't likely to live up to the expectations he set. And the DPP might have a pretty good looking candidate. In any case, it'll sure be interesting.

skiingkow said...

.
.
.
richard,

I believe the analogy you made between Taiwan and the U.S. is not a good one. First of all -- on the face of it -- Taiwan had a clear choice between 2 ideological goals. One represented continued democratic reform and constitutional change to reflect the independent status-quo of Taiwan. The other represented a choice to put democracy on the back-burners and to embrace short-term economic goals at the expense of sovereignty. Two absolutely clear choices.

In the U.S., you have a media that exaggerates the idea that there are 2 clear choices when, in reality, there really isn't. Lobbyists will still control the agenda and the men and women who stand for REAL positive change for the average American will be ignored. My god, the election process itself is unverifiable with electronic voting that has no paper trail!

Now, the two countries CAN be compared with respect to the media. Both populations have been and continue to be indoctrinated into believing false pretenses. In Taiwan, it's the idea that the KMT has significantly reformed and has embraced the ideals of democracy. In the U.S., the opinions of the corporate elite are always presented with little dissent.
.
.
.

TicoExpat said...

Politically speaking, as to democracy in Taiwan, the writing is on the wall.

Not fair, nor right, but such is life.

Anonymous said...

Anyone that thinks there will be another presidential election is living in dreamland.

This article in yesterday's paper Can Ma ignore Lien's think tank? describes what Ma is fighting against (If he is even fighting at all ~ I think he is too weak to confront the shadowKMT). Taiwan's goose is cooked.

My opinion is also formed by what I see happening in the USA regarding what the FED has been doing recently.

(allowing the bankrupted banks, and now investment houses, to use worthless MBSs as collateral for huge bailout loans which will at some point collapse the bond market because investors realize this bad debt contaminates the value of treasuries) Once investors (foreign banks - chinese/arabs) bailout of this market and the US defaults on its debt, all hell will break loose globally. I know it sounds unbelievable, but we are living in unbelievable times.

Anonymous said...

Michael -- I have a thought: why don't you post Ma's camapign promises somewhere prominently and semi-permanently on your blog? Let us see what this government actually delivers vs. the BS to get elected. I have friends here who would find it instructive to see what they voted for, or didn't.

Anonymous said...

Stop Ma -
well said.

To add some more meat to your statement, dig through opensecrets.org

Here you can see who gets what from the lobbyists. The #1 critical issue in the USA by far is how are we going to straighten out the corrupt FED and the Wall street banksters who are bankrupting the country. As you can see, all of the candidates are supported by the Wall St. scum. US taxpayers for the next 10 generations are going to get shafted to pay for bad bets by WallSt.


BARACK OBAMA (D)
Top Contributors

Goldman Sachs $522,228
UBS AG $327,302
JPMorgan Chase & Co $316,892
Lehman Brothers $302,697
National Amusements Inc $293,022
Citigroup Inc $290,146
University of California $275,046
Sidley Austin LLP $271,857
Harvard University $264,941
Google Inc $259,010
Skadden, Arps et al $248,743
Exelon Corp $227,661
Morgan Stanley $225,976
Time Warner $221,878
Jones Day $212,525
Latham & Watkins $187,208
Kirkland & Ellis $181,976
University of Chicago $179,147
Citadel Investment Group $175,900
Microsoft Corp $167,990

HILLARY CLINTON (D)
Top Contributors

DLA Piper $495,550
Goldman Sachs $440,300
Morgan Stanley $385,420
Citigroup Inc $383,852
EMILY's List $323,242
Lehman Brothers $264,610
JPMorgan Chase & Co $258,120
National Amusements Inc $227,800
Skadden, Arps et al $218,485
Greenberg Traurig LLP $191,100
Kirkland & Ellis $186,551
PricewaterhouseCoopers $185,000
University of California $184,617
Time Warner $182,150
Microsoft Corp $175,419
Merrill Lynch $172,900
Ernst & Young $157,575
Latham & Watkins $155,088
Bear Stearns $152,090
Cablevision Systems $148,263

JOHN MCCAIN (R)
Top Contributors

Merrill Lynch $209,050
Blank Rome LLP $191,500
Citigroup Inc $186,184
Greenberg Traurig LLP $161,937
Goldman Sachs $115,600
AT&T Inc $111,600
JPMorgan Chase & Co $98,050
Credit Suisse Group $92,100
Univision Communications $86,600
IDT Corp $84,850
Lehman Brothers $84,450
Bank of New York Mellon $82,350
Morgan Stanley $80,651
Wachovia Corp $76,750
MGM Mirage $71,500
Bridgewater Assoc $69,900
Blackstone Group $69,250
Bear Stearns $66,800
Irvine Co Apartment Community $66,100
UBS AG $65,665

RON PAUL (R)
Top Contributors

US Army $75,197
US Navy $55,092
Google Inc $52,451
US Air Force $50,815
Microsoft Corp $48,073
US Postal Service $24,218
Lockheed Martin $22,912
Boeing Co $22,834
Cisco Systems $19,276
AT&T Inc $19,130
Verizon Communications $18,821
Northrop Grumman $18,107
General Dynamics $17,610
Apple Inc $17,503
US Dept of Defense $17,350
Hewlett-Packard $17,217
Wachovia Corp $16,329
IBM Corp $15,844
Raytheon Co $15,029
Intel Corp $14,646

-------------------
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD
(finance comm. chairman)

1 Citigroup Inc $439,094
2 United Technologies $386,500
3 Bear Stearns $354,450
4 SAC Capital Partners $319,800
5 Deloitte & Touche $275,220
6 American International Group $271,438
7 Goldman Sachs $265,116
8 Greenwich Capital Markets $238,400
9 Travelers Companies $219,000
10 Morgan Stanley $209,725
11 Credit Suisse Group $197,050
12 Merrill Lynch $193,650
13 JPMorgan Chase & Co $189,523
14 Royal Bank of Scotland $186,150
15 PricewaterhouseCoopers $175,650
16 KPMG LLP $162,340
17 Ernst & Young $158,750
18 General Electric $158,730
19 Lehman Brothers $147,000
20 Hartford Financial Services $132,650

These are relatively small numbers because they are individual donations from employees, not from the company, but i think they show the deceit. This issue will never be resolved fairly.

And, BTW, Taiwan is not going to escape this either. I have a strong suspicion that the banks here are up to their necks in bad paper and are going to get burned hard. There were two articles in the paper recently Subprime losses increased in February and Cathay Financial reports NT$6bn loss that give a hint of what is to come.

Sorry for the long post MT, I just thought this was useful info. I am not a financial expert, just someone who is trying to figure out where we are heading.

Anonymous said...

Yes,Taiwan's democracy has plenty of flaws and things won't get better if those problems are not pointed out but it is light years ahead of the PRC and deserves a lot of respect.

Anonymous said...

I tend to generally agree with David. I think the Taiwanese have voiced their opinions loud and clear against an administration they felt wasn't taking Taiwan in the right direction. You can argue with their opinion, you can say that they're wrong, but you can't deny the fact that this is what they wanted, and this is what democracy is about.
I thought the way the elections were held, on both sides, showed alot of maturity, especially when compared to how other much older democracies do theirs.

Your point about the legislature is interesting. There were many who were making the point that more people actually voted Green this time than ever before, but it was the system that made it more difficult to gain stronger influence.
There are things to improve, but I think both Green and Blue now realize that their mandate is limited, and that they have to make an effort to stand up to the standards set by the majority of Taiwanese.

Michael Turton said...

Fili, you're way too much of an idealist. I've already demonstrated that Lorenzo's claims are clearly falsified by actual voting patterns. The question is not whether the voters were unhappy with the least corrupt and more forward looking for the two major parties, but why.

There's some other issues we'll talk privately about at some later point.

Michael

Michael Turton said...

Richard, the failure of the Dem congress has been totally catastrophic for the nation.