|
¡@
Experts vs the people: democracy in
jeopardy
By Hsu Shih-jung ®}¥@ºa
Wednesday, Mar 17, 2010, Page 8
Department of Health Minister Yaung Chih-liang (·¨§Ó¨}) recently criticized the
government, complaining about how too many democratic elections ¡§interfere¡¨ with
public policy. This attitude is perhaps best illustrated by the way in which the
ruling party is determined to sign an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA)
with China despite widespread opposition.
The proposed agreement with China has also prompted the Taiwan Solidarity Union
and more than 50 pro-independence, labor, business and industry groups, to call
for a referendum in the hope of stopping it. This situation illustrates the need
to reconsider the relationship between democracy and specialization. Failure to
do so could undermine the legitimacy of democratic participation and its role in
the determination of public policy.
Public policy is related to the pursuit of public interest. In the past, when
governments were more authoritarian, public interest was mostly decided by those
in power. However, as Taiwan embraced democratization, businesses and members of
mainstream society were encouraged to participate in the process by making their
own proposals. This demonstrated an understanding that definitions of public
interest could differ, and that in any society, public interest is an ongoing
competition between different forces. If we want to achieve consensus on what
public interest entails, as many different people as possible need to
participate.
In contrast, those currently in power appear to have done the exact opposite. In
addition to applying the knowledge of so-called ¡§experts¡¨ to the formation of
public policy, officials seem determined to embrace their ideas as the only
standard worth listening to. Administrative organizations have worked hard to
apply the ideas of experts to the resolution of complex social problems. While
this may reduce the severity of certain problems, results can just as easily
fall short of expectations and in some cases make problems worse.
When experts are unable to solve social problems, strange things happen. For
example, such individuals often believe that problems are not caused by a lack
of specialized technical knowledge, but by a lack of reason or rationale. This
leads to the conclusion that it is society and democratic politics that need to
be reassessed and reformed.
Another example of this trend can be seen when people oppose solutions proposed
by experts. When this happens, these people are invariably accused of
¡§politicization,¡¨ of being irrational, subjective and biased. Those in power say
that irrational, mainstream opinions must be eliminated from the policy
formulation process. This approach has been applied a great deal lately and has
resulted in social problems being reclassified by those in power as special
problems that can only be solved by a minority of experts. The implication is
that democratic participation is a hindrance to effective policy making.
This is very worrying; it forces us to ask whether ¡§government by experts¡¨ is
really in tune with the public interest. In the rapidly changing age of the
Internet, are not the opinions of experts themselves also limited?
We need to consider how best to combine specialized technical knowledge with
more generalized knowledge, and ways to bring together individuals from academia
and social groups to reach a consensus on public interest. When public policy
decisions are being made, experts and those in power also need to accept the
importance of the democratic process, rather than simply dismissing the ideas of
those who are not in power or experts in related fields.
Hsu Shih-jung is a professor in the Department of Land
Economics at National Chengchi University.
¡@
|
