BOOK REVIEWS

Gunter Schubert and Axel Schneider eds: Taiwan an der Schwelle zum XXI.Jahrhundert.Gesellschaftlicher Wandel, Probleme und Perspektiven eines asiatischen Schwellenlandes, and Beate Tränkmann: Demokratisierung und Reform des politischen Systems auf Taiwan

In Germany, Taiwan has for a long time been the poor relation in terms of research on China (1). The appearance of these two works (the first in March 1996, the second in 1997) heralded a re-evaluation of the island’s importance, at a time when it found itself, with the first direct presidential elections, at a turning-point in its political history. Bringing together 15 writers from different backgrounds, Taiwan on the Threshold of the 21st Century gives an overview (domestic politics, foreign policy, economy and society) with an interdisciplinary approach (sinology, anthropology, sociology, law and ecology) to the subject, whereas Beate Tränkmann’s book is an in-depth study of the nature of the constitutional changes of the 1990s. Both works are an attempt to determine the factors that have contributed to the democratisation of the Taiwanese political system. In the Introduction to this collective work, the writers also raise the question of the specific features, be they Taiwanese or Chinese, of this system, the new problems that democratisation brings in its wake and the kind of model that it could be for other emerging nations.

Based on a meticulous examination of the results of the elections that took place between November 1986 (2) and December 1995, Jürgen Domes shows how the political discussions of that period, aired by the media, gave rise to real democratic debate on the island and forced the rival parties into defining their platform in relation to the aspirations of the population. The will of the people has been able to make itself felt both nationally and locally thanks to the six elections held in the 1990s, all of which had a high voter turnout. Domes concludes from this that Taiwan has successfully made the transition to democracy.

Gunter Schubert describes how the Leninist-type authoritarian party that the Kuomintang (KMT) originally was, came to adopt democratic structures. He puts this change down both to the “Taiwanisation” that got underway in the 1970s (3) and to the factionalism that took root within the party itself during the 1980s, giving rise to an internal dynamic which, in 1993, brought about the defection of some of its members and the creation of the New Party (NP). For Schubert, such changes have enabled the KMT to withstand the development of the opposition and stay in the struggle for power with a reasonable amount of room for manoeuvre.

However, the KMT has some trouble stepping back from its history, as Michael Meyer shows in his article on the White Terror (4). This well-documented piece offers an interesting investigation of a little-known subject. He shows that the KMT, in trying to work towards Taiwanese national reconciliation, has confined itself to acknowledging its mistakes at the time of the uprising of February 28th 1947. He also shows that there is little chance of it admitting its wrongdoings over anti-communist repression, all the less so in that the victims have refused to allow the opposition to exploit the subject.

Stephan Grauwels outlines (in English) the avantgarde role that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has played in the democratic modernisation of Taiwan, in particular in raising the national identity question and breaking down taboos over the subject of independence. Grauwels shows that the DPP has had, however, to abandon its most radical demands in order to win over public opinion and that some parts of its platform are quite close to those of the other parties.

All three writers pose the question of future KMT, DPP and NP relations. Domes thinks that, given the current state of play, they will not be able to avoid forming a coalition in order to govern. Grauwels writes of a political system with “two and a half parties” and foresees a German-style interplay of alliances, i.e. a coalition involving the NP with either the KMT or the DPP, or more probably, a Belgian-style succession of power-sharing arrangements, the most important party—the KMT—governing at one time with the DPP, at another with the NP.

Axel Schneider criticises the hybrid and imprecise nature of the Taiwanese constitutional system (in 1996). He shares Beate Tränkmann’s view, after having carried out a rigorous and detailed analysis of the changes that were made to this system in the 1990s. The 1947 Constitution was geared towards giving Parliament the upper hand. Following some modifications, the regime of the 1990s has evolved towards a semi-presidential system (comparable in part to the French one under the Vth Republic), but one which presents, in Tränkmann’s opinion, such imperfections as to affect the stability of political power. In this bicephalous executive system, the division of powers is not, in her view, regulated at all satisfactorily (5). As she explains, if the Constitution currently appears as a makeshift arrangement without any real internal consistency, it is because the KMT has been unwilling to set in motion an overall process of reform because that would have gone against its initial objective of reuniting China and would have undermined its legitimacy by cutting the party off from its roots. It would also have had to accommodate various political interests.

All writers follow the same tack of analysing the Taiwanese system in terms of Western norms. Admittedly, these have served as a point of reference for the Taiwanese elites, since most of them have studied in the United States. Conversely, their final judgement on the degree of democratisation reached by Taiwan is not uniform. Domes concludes that the transition from an authoritarian dictatorship to a parliamentary democracy has been successfully achieved in Taiwan. In a text published in 1999, he affirms moreover that the success of democratisation in Taiwan is proof that democratic procedures can function in a Chinese society (6). Tränkmann is more cautious about the longevity of this still imperfect democracy. She goes on to admit that there exist factors, outside the sphere of her analysis, that played a role in the drafting of the Taiwanese Constitution, such as the influence of charismatic figures and their networks—“structures which are not unusual in Asian societies”—and draws the conclusion that the Taiwanese Constitution does not have the status of a legal document above inter-party struggles, but appears to be a bone of contention for them. Schneider comes to the same conclusion, wondering whether Taiwan can at last be presented—in the way the international media already do—as an example of the universality of Western democratic values and their applicability to the so-called Confucianist societies of Asia. It would have been useful for the reader to have been given, by way of comparison, some insight into those aspects of Taiwanese political life, no more than alluded to here, that go towards relativising the judgement of both these writers (7).

The work examines the question of a Taiwanese national identity from several different angles. Indeed, this notion is subject to contradictory views ranging from a regional to a national perspective, just as there are competing conceptions of the nation as either a cultural or a political entity. Chang Mao-kuei adopts a political perspective in his piece in which, after having given a very well-documented historical account, he takes issue with the claim that this is purely an “ethnic” problem, namely a clash between “Mainlanders” and “Taiwanese”, given the complexity of the question of origins (8). He points out that this matter, discussion of which had been stifled for a long time by the KMT’s policy of assimilation, only entered the public arena in the early 1990s, even if some ethnic-type movements had already started up in the previous decade, and it only took on importance when it was institutionalised by the parties, which made it an important plank in their own struggles. He thinks that this is the reason why it subsequently became a fundamental part of the political landscape.

On the basis of a compilation of writings published by Taiwanese authors (including during the period of Japanese occupation), the late Helmut Martin assesses the role that literature might play in the search for a Taiwanese identity. For him, the classical forms of the island’s literature—snubbed by the general public, subject to competition from urban youth sub-culture as well as from the media, and rejected by the “Mainlanders” and the business interests opposed to a too narrow nationalist vision—do not express any real Taiwanese specificity. The latter could be said rather to have a regionalist dimension and be manifest more in the writings of intellectuals who have turned away from traditional forms towards social, political or environmental activism. The promotion of a particular identity is also and increasingly finding expression in a rejection of “the language of Peking” in favour of Taiwanese (hokkien).

The awakening of a Taiwanese national consciousness has also taken the form of a rehabilitation of the culture and standing of aborigines, whose material and social circumstances were still deplorable even in the 1990s. The opposition, the Presbyterian Church and intellectuals led campaigns to advance their cause and obtained measures to improve their status and “reconstruct” their culture. Michael Rudolph seems cautious about the outcome of such measures, but the movement is a significant sign of a desire to establish a foundation for a national identity.

Carsten Hermann-Pillath tackles the same question from an economic angle. He wonders what influence can be exerted by the growing economic integration that stems from the investment policy of Taiwanese businessmen, beginning with the observation that such integration has spurred interregional debate over labour between the island and some coastal provinces on the mainland and has created a “regional economic space” (9) in which the Taiwanese elites impose their choices and work practices and finally make up for the absence of local structures, thanks to the organisations that they have created. In his view, the context of regional integration is favourable neither to the formulation of an identity nor to a consolidation of a Taiwanese national consciousness, as the growth in investment on the mainland has seen a corresponding loss of influence by the Taiwanese state both on economic activities and on businessmen. He considers that it finds itself to be a “weak state” faced with a “strong society”. Taiwanese businessmen are only interested in the maintaining of the status quo, and furthering independence demands would not fit this requirement. Political relations with the regional and local authorities on the mainland are far more important than formal relations between the two central governments. The ethnic question and Taiwanese specificities seem to him rather to represent a “case of regional differenciation”.

The question of national identity is fundamental to the definition of Taiwanese foreign policy—the preservation of a Taiwanese identity depending on the safeguarding of the island’s political system—and therefore has implications for the mode of co-existence with the People’s Republic of China and the international strategy that Taiwan will choose for the future.

For Oskar Weggel, Taiwan’s future hinges on the economic boom strategy that the Taiwanese Government has hitherto adopted (maintaining the island’s high level of economic performance and portfolio politics). The island has assets that will allow it to continue to assert itself on the mainland by exporting its economic model throughout the region, as the advance post of “blue China” and, at the international level, as a hub in the region of “tigers” and “dragons”. By making itself indispensable, Taiwan will preserve its freedom of action.

Other writers are more guarded about the island’s economic outlook. Tim Trampedach points out the limits of such a policy, in so far as it makes the island overdependent on Peking. And as Detlev Rehn shows, Taiwan will have to confront the problems associated with its becoming a member of the WTO (the existence of areas that remain heavily protected, infrastructures that need modernising, external trade that is inadequately diversified, the strengthening of competition—including that from the mainland—and risks of unemployment) and to come to an agreement with the United States, due to its trade surpluses. The balance sheet drawn up by Peter Heck exposes the risks caused by forced industrialisation sapping the potential of the ecosystem, but he also points out that the island has been able to master a number of strategies for sustainable development and has set itself an ambitious programme of environmental protection. Taiwan’s progress also depends on the reform of its education system which, as Adelheid Hu shows, is a mix of Confucianist thought and careerism, but one that must henceforth put more emphasis on personal development and adapt to the new democratic dispensation.

Trampedach, like Näth, thinks that the solution adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) from the 1970s (“one nation, two states”) would be appropriate to the present context. Näth explains that the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan could co-habit as states with equal status in all international bodies (including the UN), yet without regarding each other as separate foreign countries. Accordingly, the FRG did not consider inhabitants of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) to be foreigners and the GDR in turn did not have an embassy, but rather representation, in the FRG (the latter having given only de facto and not de jure recognition to the GDR). Yet, objectively speaking, that the two situations have only partial similarities. The People’s Republic of China has the edge in terms of size and demographic weight, while Taiwan’s only advantage is its economic development. The FRG had all these advantages over the GDR. Moreover, FRG-GDR relations were set against the background of the Cold War, and that being the case neither nation would have independently launched a direct military attack against the other. Their security was guaranteed by one or other of the two great powers. But in the event of an attack on Taiwan, we might wonder about the degree of US determination to become militarily involved in any conflict with China in order to protect the island (10). A “German” solution could therefore be said to be only a limited safeguard for Taiwan. It could, however, enable it to have a seat in the United Nations, in line with the Taiwan Government’s request, which would no doubt afford it a better position diplomatically—as long, that is, as the PRC discontinues its practice of applying a sort of “Hallstein doctrine” by refusing all diplomatic relations with countries having official ties with Taiwan.

For Näth, the choice of a German solution is underpinned by the idea that unification will occur within a relatively short space of time (she thinks that the firm foundation of the regime in China is overestimated and that it will collapse more quickly than is generally believed). Implicit in her argument is the assumption that the Taiwanese and the Chinese all belong to the one nation, but in this case one may well ask what place do identity claims have here. Then again, Trampedach does not believe in future unification, short of there being military intervention by the PRC, something which is highly unlikely in his opinion, as it would be too costly both economically and internationally, and too difficult to carry out from a military point of view (11). He dismisses the idea of a gradual merging of the island and the mainland via the economy, considering the geographic and economic differences to be too great, which is why he thinks that, even in the event of the fall of communism, Taiwan would wish to gain its independence rather than be reunited with a mainland that is both politically unstable and economically less advanced.

In short, the interest of these two books lies in the clarity, accuracy and richness of the presentations as well as in the conceptual range that they bring to bear on issues that remain subjects of debate. The editors of this collective work unfortunately did not bring the various themes together in a short final summation, which would have provided at least some partial answer to the questions raised in the introduction. Chen Shui-bian’s election as President retrospectively confirms the optimism of Domes, but the economic and ecological limits as well as the tensions with Peking referred to by his colleagues remain as they were.

Translated from French original by Peter Brown