|
Forging a violence-free democracy
By Shihyi Albert Chiu 邱師儀
The shooting of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Central Committee member Sean
Lien (連勝文) on the evening before Saturday’s special municipality elections has
cast a shadow of political violence over the rivalry between the KMT-aligned
pan-blue camp and the pan-green camp consisting of the Democratic Progressive
Party and its allies. This attack comes just a few years after the shooting
attack on then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and vice president Annette Lu
(呂秀蓮) on March 19, 2004, the day before the presidential election. Leaders of
both political camps would be ill advised to think of these as isolated
incidents, because if the “bullet factor” becomes accepted as a feature of
Taiwan’s political scene, then civic unrest, as a paradoxical result of the
democratic path Taiwan has chosen, will surely make the country’s gradual
economic recovery even more difficult.
Compared with many other emerging democracies, Taiwan’s political scene has been
relatively free of violence. Many writers have described Taiwan as having
undergone a “quiet revolution.” Although Taiwanese may sometimes be overzealous
when it comes to politics, even when the “red shirt” movement calling for the
ouster of Chen brought tens of thousands of people onto the streets, come late
Sunday evening they made the pragmatic choice by dispersing and hurrying off to
the nearest MRT station, because they had to go to work or look after their
children the next day.
Since the late 1980s, the Taiwanese tendency to chase after the latest
short-lived trend has been reflected in a lack of “structural” fervor in
political behavior. This has enabled Taiwan to go through two fairly smooth
transitions of central government power, in the course of which the country’s
democracy has become more deeply rooted.
However, since Chen and Lu’s “two-bullet incident,” Taiwan’s democratic
performance has been rather patchy, though there has been some progress with
respect to consolidating the democratic system. For example, the judiciary has
tried Chen for corruption and put him in jail.
Unfortunately, the news is not so good when it comes to democratic elections,
which are an aspect of procedural justice. Before last weekend’s elections, many
observers felt that the pan-blue and pan-green camps had adopted a new calm and
rational approach in their rivalry for mayorships of the five municipalities,
but the attempt on Lien’s life shocked the nation out of its complacency by once
more bringing the bullet factor into play in an election. This development may
change the textbook definition of Taiwanese political participation as being
mostly pragmatic and shying away from bloody conflict.
If the shootings of Chen, Lu and Lien are taken to be political assassination
attempts, then the actions of both assailants, the first of whom fired from
among crowds of people while the second climbed onto a stage where everyone
could see him, are very puzzling indeed. In both cases, one wonders what motive
the attackers could have had for resorting to violence while disregarding the
heavy price they were likely to pay.
Some historical precedents may shed light on the question. In the late 19th
century, US president James Garfield was shot and mortally wounded not long
after taking office. The assailant was a supporter who was disappointed at not
being rewarded for his efforts with a post in the diplomatic service. Garfield’s
assassin was arrested, sentenced and hanged. Three years ago, Benazir Bhutto, a
member of Pakistan’s political elite, became the victim of political struggle
and religious conflict when she was shot dead after a political rally. The
assassin in that case then killed himself by setting off a suicide bomb.
Sometimes assassins’ motives are quite nonsensical. For example, John Hinckley
tried to kill US president Ronald Reagan to attract the attention of movie
actress Jodie Foster. Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity, but
has been locked up in a mental institution ever since.
Everyone who has researched the issue knows that voting and other forms of
political participation are irrational in the sense that casting one ballot
actually has very little influence on a candidate’s chances of getting elected.
In other words, political participation is largely an impulsive kind of behavior
driven by emotions. Political violence could be said to be an extreme form of
emotional political participation in which the perpetrator resorts to bloodshed
to induce public terror.
Nonetheless, political violence is illegitimate, because it destroys the civic
consensus that political disagreements should be resolved through negotiations
within the system. As such, it seriously contravenes procedural justice. Whether
the government’s response is to launch a widespread operation against gangsters,
formulate measures to preventing electoral violence or conduct long-term civic
education to promote political tolerance, it must think long and hard about what
direction Taiwan’s political development will take following the latest
shooting. Above all, leaders and media pundits from both the pan-blue and
pan-green camps need to reflect on the damage they have done over the years by
fanning the flames of intercommunal conflict in Taiwan.
Shihyi Albert Chiu is an assistant professor in the department
of political science at Tunghai University.
|
