Direct Democracy in Taiwan and China

Taiwan needs change in parliamentary majority

By Dennis Engbarth
Taiwan News, Staff Writer
Page 4
2008-10-14 12:59 AM

Source: http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=762247

A researcher in the development of referendums, initiatives and other methods of direct democracy since the 1970s, Professor Theo Schiller of the department of political science at Phillips University in Marburg, Germany, is chairman of the supervisory committee for the Initiative and Referendum Institute (IRI) - Europe.

After convening a major conference on "World Direct Democracy" in Aarau, Switzerland, Schiller discussed the potential and the problems of direct democracy methods for "democratizing democracy" in Europe and Asia, including Taiwan.

Q: Some proponents say that direct democracy can do everything that representative democracy does and does it better. Do you agree?

A: Representative democracy must provide the foundation for any democratic system. Direct democracy cannot replace representative democracy, but direct democracy methods can improve and supplement the political processes in representative democracies; and inject new life into representative systems by providing procedures which allow citizens to raise issues on decision-making agenda without the mediation of political parties through "popular initiatives" that may become referendums; or to settle an issue by a direct popular vote through referendum instead of parliamentary procedures. In representative democracies, there are always some areas that are overlooked or neglected so there is always a certain lack of responsiveness in representative systems. In these neglected areas of political life, direct democracy methods can help to articulate the interests of minorities or neglected groups of people, and such people can use direct democracy to push for improvements and innovations.

Q: Most European countries incorporate some forms of direct democracy, but is there any potential for the use of direct democracy at the EU level?

A: The European Union political system is not yet a complete representative democratic system, but a deficit or a secondary representative democracy that is far less representative than the systems of EU member countries. At present, we cannot see how the European political system can develop toward full-scale representative democracy and therefore there is even more need for direct democracy in Europe on the European level than in the individual national democracies. Ideally, we would need direct democracy on the European level in two forms. First, we need the right of popular or people's initiative and the institution of "optional referendum" through which EU citizens would be able to affirm or reject legislation on a EU level. However, at the current phase of political development in the EU, we will not get these rights. However, the proposed "European Citizen Initiative" which is contained in the proposed Treaty of Lisbon is a very first step. The ECI will be only a kind of "agenda initiative" through which one million people can put an initiative on the political agenda through their signatures on an initiative petition and is a very small first step to begin a development toward more direct democracy on the European level. I believe it is very important to get the Treaty of Lisbon, which has been stalled by its rejection by referendum in Ireland in June, ratified and the ECI implemented so that citizens in the EU will be able to use this first truly European transnational instrument of direct democracy.

Q: What lessons can we learn from the experience of the Swiss system of direct democracy?

A: Switzerland is a special case with a long history of direct democracy. In most other European countries and other parts of the world, we are still a long way from formulating the rules and to have the courage to give access to these methods of direct democracy not just to majorities or large minorities but also to small groups so they can initiate and put new issues on the agenda and stir up new debates and deliberations. And there must also be much time for discussions by citizens on initiatives or referendums in society because only on the basis of thorough discussion and debate can the quality of direct democracy methods be developed.

Q: What is your assessment of the prospects of direct democracy in the new democracies in Eastern Europe?

A: Instruments of direct democracy were introduced in Eastern Europe, especially in those countries which strived for independence such as the Baltic nations of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia as well as Slovakia and Slovenia. In connection with gaining independence, they had a concept that democratic transformation was a process of the whole nation and therefore they set the rules for using people's initiatives very high because they felt that initiatives or referendums should only be used by large majorities so as not to allow any small group the right of initiative. But this belief has proven to be wrong. These high thresholds now block the use of direct democracy instruments which cannot have any utility beyond consolidation of power. Unless these countries lower or eliminate unreasonable thresholds on petitions and turnout quorums, it will be impossible for direct democracy methods to realize their most important function, which is to give the right of people's initiative to minorities so that they can articulate neglected interests and values.

Q: What is your evaluation of the experience of Asian countries with direct democracy methods?

A: In a general way, the experience in most Asian countries has been similar to that of Eastern Europe, but in Asia, there are also several countries with rather authoritarian systems in which the transformation of the power structures has not even begun, including places like Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, not to mention China or Burma. Other countries, such as Taiwan, South Korea and the Philippines, have instruments of direct democracy, but the context of the transformation of the whole power system has yet to be developed further.

Q: Does this pessimistic evaluation hold for Taiwan as well?

A: If you look at Taiwan comparatively in terms of democratic development, what is surely necessary is one or two changes in the parliamentary majority. So far, we have had two periods in which the president and the executive branch were controlled by a different party than the traditional power but in which the parliamentary majority did not change. What is very important is that there should be a change in the parliamentary majority because such a change in the parliamentary majority is a necessary condition for a genuine democratic transformation. In that period, it may be possible to deal with some issues in the reform of direct democracy and the current referendum law, but direct democracy may even be a factor bringing this process forward. However, changes of power in the Executive branch are not enough. Unless there is a change in the parliamentary majority, the democratic transformation will remain incomplete. However, it is clear that external factors and external relations can greatly influence the internal chances for such a transformation.

Q: Taiwan had two referenda together with the January legislative elections and the March presidential election that were nominally initiatives but promoted by the then governing Democratic Progressive Party. How do you evaluate their significance?

A: People's initiatives from the bottom that lead to referendums are in the last analysis more important than plebiscites or other referendums from the top down in securing democratic transformations. Even if referendums initiated by the people from the bottom up lose, they are very valuable as they activate participation of the citizens. Even if the two referendums earlier this year did not gain valid passage, they still have a legacy of having activated citizen participation and so they can contribute to the process of the development of democracy in Taiwan.

Q: What are the prospects for direct democracy in the People's Republic of China?

A: Before anything else, China needs to have guarantees of fundamental human and political rights and the rule of law and guarantees that citizens who are molested by the government or other authorities can gain redress in court. These conditions are not fulfilled in the PRC but if they do not exist, you cannot really begin to act politically as a free citizen. Until guarantees for the free expression of opinion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly in public places, freedom of forming political associations and other basic rights are realized, there will be no room for having any meaningful democracy.

TAIWAN: First Civil Referendum to be Held

Kaohsiung to hold island's first civil referendum

Publication Date: 10/16/2008 Section: National Affairs
By Ellen Ko
Source: http://taiwanjournal.nat.gov.tw/ct.asp?CtNode=122&xItem=45219

For the first time, a referendum initiated by a civil group rather than a political party will take place Nov. 15 in Kaohsiung City. Voters will be asked whether to cap primary and high school class size at 25 students, according to the Kaohsiung City Election Commission.

The referendum, initiated by the Kaohsiung Teachers' Association, aims to reduce the average number of students in primary and high school classes in the city from the current 30.8 and 33.8 respectively to 25 by 2011. As the first referendum held by a local government and initiated by a civil group rather than a political party since the passage of the Referendum Act in November 2003, this event is considered a landmark in Taiwan's history of direct democracy.

Three national referenda on six proposals have been held since the Referendum Act was first passed. All were highly political issues proposed by the two major political parties, and none achieved the 50-percent threshold of participation to validate.

At the "World of Direct Democracy" global seminar organized by the Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe Oct. 1-2 in Switzerland, Hwang Jau-yuan, professor of law at National Taiwan University, called the case a good start of direct democracy in Taiwan. "The referendum in Kaohsiung is a demonstration of bottom-up democracy, which is a good sign for its development in Taiwan," he said. It is worth observing whether the referendum can pass the threshold of 50-percent turnout, he added.

The teachers' association began its campaign in January 2006. It first submitted the collected signatures in January 2008 in the hope that the referendum could be held in tandem with the presidential election in March. But the Kaohsiung City Election Commission reviewed the names and concluded that the association failed to garner enough valid signatures to meet the requirements for public endorsement--54,643 names or 5 percent of the eligible voters in the city.

The association quickly re-submitted a new list of signatures. On May 23, the commission announced that the case had officially qualified for a referendum.

By law, a turnout of 50 percent of registered voters, around 570,000 in Kaohsiung, is required to validate a referendum, and half of the votes need to be favorable for the proposal to pass. The association's referendum is expected to cost the city government an estimated US$855,000.

Kaohsiung's Education Bureau has voiced its opposition to the proposal, saying it will increase the city's financial burden. If the proposal is passed, it would mean adding 281 classes and providing 490 more teachers, as well as spending another US$984,600 per year on staff, not to speak of the money needed to build another 874 classrooms, said Chen Chin-yuan, deputy chief of the Bureau. Furthermore, it was argued that the referendum was pointless because the goal of 25 children per class would eventually be achieved through the declining birth rate.

Renn Hwai-ming, director of KTA Education Policy Center, said that the referendum is significant in terms of grassroots democracy as well as educational reform. However, he also admitted that the association is rather pessimistic about the prospects of the referendum. "We missed a great opportunity by not holding it jointly with the 2008 Presidential Election. Though our campaign gathers momentum each day, the interest for public issues and the drive to vote are simply unparalleled during election times," he said. Furthermore, limited by budget, the number of polling stations for the referendum is set at 203, far less than the 848 provided for the 2008 presidential election and the 839 for the last city mayor election, he added, stressing that the turnout would be seriously affected by the commission's arrangement.

"Should the referendum fail, by law we will not be able to raise the same issue again for the next three years. But we think it is still worth trying. At least, we have demonstrated to the public a constructive way of discussing public issues and the real essence of democracy," Renn said.

Write to Ellen Ko at ellenko@mail.gio.gov.tw

TAIWAN: Referendum Process Needs Strengthening

Although a Referendum Law was passed in Taiwan in 2003, it has yet to take hold as a common form of participation. While referendums have been held on important issues, participation has been weak and the legal validity of each referendum was compromised because of low turnout. The lack of public participation may be a symptom of an over-worked population, or it may be the result of little confidence in the veracity of efforts by untrustworthy public officials, but the ultimate consequence is a perpetual cycle of disconnect between government and people that must be addressed in order to make the referendum process an effective mechanism for direct democracy. As the author states, all players should be making a concerted effort to strengthen the process. - Editor

Working to strengthen the role of plebiscites

By Chen Lung-Chu

Sunday, Jun 22, 2008, Page 8

Source: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2008/06/22/2003415371

Before the Referendum Law was passed in 2003, Taiwan had already held referendums at the local level. Since a committee protesting the construction of a fifth naphtha cracker plant by CPC Corp, Taiwan in Houchin, Kaohsiung City, held the nation's first referendum in 1990, there have been other referendums on various public issues.

In 1994, a referendum was held on the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Kungliao Township in Taipei County. In 1995, another referendum on the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant and a referendum on road construction in Sijhih (¦Á¤î) were held in Taipei County. Other referendums that year included another on nuclear power in Taipei City, one on the construction of Yongkang Park in Taipei City and one on the exploration of Daliao Township in Kaohsiung County.

In 1997, a referendum was held on the reconstruction of Liaoting Community in Chiayi County and in 1998 a major investment project proposed by Bayer AG was put to a referendum in Taichung County.

The same year, a plebiscite was also held in Tainan City on Taiwan's future.

All of these referendums lacked a legal basis, however, so the results were not legally binding. The results of the referendum on the construction of Yongkang Park, however, were recognized by the Taipei City Government as binding.

Since the Referendum Law was passed, six nationwide referendums have been held. In 2004, two plebiscites were held, one on increasing the nation's purchase of anti-missile weaponry and one on negotiations with China on the establishment of a peace and stability framework. In January, two referendums were held in tandem with the legislative elections: the Democratic Progressive Party's referendum on recovering the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) stolen assets and the KMT-proposed referendum on giving the legislature investigative powers.

Two more plebiscites were held in conjunction with the presidential election in March, both on seeking UN membership.

Although the results of each of the six referendums were affirmative, all were invalid because the total voter turnout fell below the legally specified minimum.

Before the Referendum Law became reality, it was impossible for the public to directly communicate their opinions on important issues to the government. It was not easy to pass this law. Without the efforts of academics, experts, civic organizations and the general public, legally binding direct democracy would never have been possible. However, the referendum system has repeatedly fallen victim to vicious political power struggles, which has led to boycotts that have taken advantage of the high threshold for valid results.

This has shown the deficiencies in the legislation, which must be amended in order for the act to serve its purpose: allowing the public a vehicle to communicate their will on crucial matters.

The government, political parties and the public each have an important role in deepening the nation¡¦s democracy. The government has the obligation to promote referendums and inform the public about them in a fair and transparent manner. Political parties need to throw their weight behind an amendment to the legislation rather than boycotting referendums for their own ends. The public, meanwhile, has a duty to exercise its rights when there is a plebiscite.

Together, the government, political parties and the public should strive to expand the role of referendums in the nation's democracy.