Democratic consolidation in Taiwan in comparative perspective

Abstract

Taiwan has been one of the most successful East Asian countries in transitioning from authoritarian rule to liberal democracy. Using a wide range of survey data, this paper examines the process of democratic consolidation in Taiwan from 1996 to 2012, and benchmarks the country’s progress with other East Asian democracies, third wave democracies, and established democracies. The results show that positive regime evaluations have been generally stable since the mid-1990s, although efficacy is slightly lower than is found elsewhere. Party attachments among the mass public have increased incrementally, against the international trends. The level of polarization within the party system has remained consistently low by international standards. Overall, the results confirm that the process of democratic consolidation in Taiwan is close to completion.

Broken back? Efficacy and participation in Asia’s democracies

“…All three of these explanations for political participation, developed and tested on the systems of the United States and Europe, offer insight into the behavior of the citizens of the newly democratic systems in Asia. As previous scholars have noted, democratic consolidation proceeds as one might expect in Taiwan and South Korea (McAllister, 2016; Sanborn, 2015).…”

“…In Asia, the adherence to liberal values, combined with the poor evaluation of government, may suggest a role for this line of inquiry. In Taiwan, for example, citizens appear to have developed beliefs in internal efficacy (Sanborn, 2015), and evaluations of external efficacy (McAllister, 2016) that are comparable to other democracies. However, some scholars have argued that institutional actors have wrought lasting damage on the political system; Templeman et al (2016) offer a critical overview of the Chen Shui-bian administration, complemented by scholars who observe the influence of poor institutional performance well into the Ma presidency (Batto, 2014; Chu et al, 2016).…”

The Regional Development of Democratization and Civil Society: Transition, Consolidation, Hybridization, Globalization - Taiwan and Hungary

“…In both regions, Central and Eastern Europe and post-authoritarian East and South East Asia, a wide body of literature has been established regarding some focal points which are characteristic for each region. In Central and Eastern Europe, the tradition of the planned economy, the need to rebuild the market economy after communism, the opportunities for European networking, extended welfare services and the tradition of interwar developments can be identified (Dawisha, Parrot, 1997); and in Asia, integration into the world economy, the successes of economic development under authoritarian rule, the challenge of the poorly dealt with authoritarian past, civilian-military relations, and the relationship between ancient Asian culture and religion and Western-based global human rights values and concepts are the main lines of differentiation (Diamond, Plattner, 1998;McAllister, 2016;Croissant, 2004). Shin (2008Shin ( , 2016, Fukuyama (2012) and others established a network of analytical aspects for the interpretation of problems and achievements of new democracies in East and South East Asia, relating to the Third Wave and subsequent consolidation:…”

“…On the global scene, China was an emerging actor, and the US supported democratization and consolidation processes in the region, not with the same intensity and engagement in each and every country, but according to the regional interests of their foreign policy. Democratic consolidation in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea, which are considered to be stable, free and liberal democracies in the region, is partly due to the US presence and support based on security concerns in these countries, with powerful enemies on the other side Shin, Kim, 2016;McAllister, 2016;Croissant, 2017).…”

Is the Age of Party Democracy Over or Are Parties Entering a New Renaissance?

“…While Spain have a familiar left-right cleavage structure which has strained under varying degrees of neoliberalism, the salient political divide in Taiwan has remained one of unification-independence and the NPP has been one of the most vocal parties for independence. Taiwan has carried out neoliberal policies at the hands of both of the major parties (Chen and Li 2011; Hsu 2009); however, the salience of these policies have remained in the shadow of the dominant unification-independence cleavage and the attendant identity issues they bring to the fore (Hsieh 2005;McAllister 2016;Tsai 2016). Although the unificationindependence debate may also implicate concerns about the Taiwanese economy, unlike the Spanish case, this cleavage is not itself a matter of the kind of involvement that a government should have in the operation of the economy.…”