Elections

Electoral Progress

• Byline:
• Publication Date:02/02/2002

The new officeholders (national legislators, mayors, and county executives) being sworn in this month were chosen in December in what were indisputably the cleanest--and therefore the fairest--elections in Taiwan's history. Taiwan voters have been electing their own leaders at local levels since the 1950s. In more recent years they have twice (1996 and 2000) selected the president by direct ballot, and every three years since 1992 they have participated in complete new elections for members of the Legislative Yuan, the national lawmaking body. With completion of each successful election, the concept and practice of democracy have become even more deeply ingrained as the bedrock of this country's political system.

Election periods in Taiwan were once known as "democratic holidays." In the not-so-good old days of martial law, up to 1987, basic freedoms of speech, press, and assembly were heavily curtailed. But for a few weeks leading up to elections for a limited number of public offices, those controls would be eased. Hungry for the chance to listen to an unfettered discussion of public issues, citizens would turn out in large numbers to attend campaign rallies where they would hang on the candidates' every word.

The periodic airing of views critical of the government provided a safety valve in an otherwise tightly controlled society. But the holiday benevolence did not extend to the structure of the electoral process as a whole. Longstanding regulations and practices--including a ban on organized opposition parties and restricted access to the mass media--stacked the deck against candidates deemed unfriendly to the party in power. Only token numbers of dissidents managed to get elected. And once the balloting was completed, the temporary atmosphere of open discourse came to an abrupt halt.

Taiwan's political climate has changed so thoroughly in such a relatively short time that the situation a mere decade and a half ago seems wholly alien to today's way of life. No longer confined to the exemption of a "holiday" period, the conduct ing of democracy has become a central element in how this society comports itself 365 days a year. The freewheeling political discussions that can now be heard any evening on television talk shows make the brave exchanges of pre-1987 election campaign periods seem tentative by comparison. Such unbridled airing of political opinion extends to newspapers, magazines, and radio, and the contending forces in the political arena now consist of four major political parties and innumer able minor ones.

That democracy has become an established norm instead of an exciting new development may in large part explain the decline in the voting turnout. The participation rate in December's balloting was a mere 66.16 percent, a new low in Taiwan for national elections--but a level commonly experienced in mature democracies without compulsory voting systems. De spite hand-wringing from some political observers who interpreted the low turnout as an indication of voter alienation or lack of commitment to democracy, the reduced number of eligible voters coming to the polls may be a less ominous sign that elections are no longer a novelty.

There is another reason why the drop in the participation rate this time need not be lamented--it almost certainly reflects the Justice Ministry's determined effort to eliminate vote-buying as a major factor in Taiwan's electoral behavior. Chinese society's traditional emphasis on personal relations, and on gift-gifting as an integral component of those relations, unfortu nately contributed to creating a political culture in which many citizens, especially in rural areas, expected to receive a material token of the candidate's respect in exchange for their vote. Over the years Taiwan's local political factions took advantage of that cultural propensity to build extensive networks based on vote-buying brokers to sustain their political machines.

Justice Minister Chen Ding-nan's mobilization of police and prosecutors in all election districts managed to hold this grievous distortion of democracy to a minimum before the December balloting, diminishing the possibility that certain candidates could purchase their way into office. If some voters in the end decided to stay home instead of going to the polls when they did not receive their customary "red envelope," that outcome should be considered a net gain for democracy, not a detriment. Now the challenge is first to ensure that the progress in decreasing electoral corruption remains a permanent achievement, and second to further educate the citizenry to regard casting a ballot as a cherished right and obligation, never to be traded for some monetary consideration.

Besides the advances against vote-buying, another breakthrough in this election was the imposition of strict administra tive neutrality by government officials. During past campaigns it was common to find public employees out on the hustings assisting candidates of the political parties they favored--often on explicit orders from their superiors. This time the Central Personnel Administration directed all civil servants to remain impartial, allowing only political appointees to take part in the campaigning.

With these improvements in its electoral system, eliminating some past imperfections, Taiwan more than ever deserves the respect and commendation of the international community for its strides in implementing democracy. As vital as contin ued military preparedness may be, Taiwan's most effective weapon in maintaining its security has been the support it has gained internationally because of its free and open political process. Taiwan's democratic development will be even more meaningful if it can serve as an inspiration for mainland China in the years ahead. Considering Taiwan's remarkable political progress, it can no longer be reasonably argued that Chinese people are incapable of exercising democracy.