Political Development in 20th-Century Taiwan: State-Building, Regime Transformation and the Construction of National Identity

Abstract

for their helpful comments and suggestions for revisions. 1. For our analysis, a political regime is defined as an ensemble of patterns that determines the methods of access to the principal public offices; the characteristics of the actors admitted to or excluded from such access; the strategies that actors may use to gain access; and the rules that are followed in the making of publicly binding decisions.

Political Unification and Independence in the Media: The Case of Taiwan

“…In the area of political attitudes, the most polarizing issue in Taiwan is without doubt that of unification versus independence for Taiwan (Chu & Lin, 2001;Hsieh & Niou, 1996;Lin, Chu, & Hinich, 1996;Wachman, 1994;Wang, 2008;Wu, 1992;Wu, 1993Wu, , 2005Wu, 1997;Wu, 1999Wu, , 2001Sheng, 2002;Chen, 2003;You, 1996;You, Lin, & Lim, 2013). Since 1990, attitudes among the Taiwanese public on the matter of unification versus independence has shifted between these two polar extremes.…”

Aggression and perceived national face threats in Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese CMC discussion boards

“…The issue of national identity in cross-Strait relations between Mainland China and Taiwan remains both highly sensitive and increasingly disputed (Chu & Lin 2001;Dittmer 2004;Hsu 2010;Huang 2009 Taiwanese unity in the Chinese educational system, it seems to be logical to assume that a fair proportion of the Chinese population considers the Taiwanese to be Chinese. While no society is unanimous in its political discourse, which can also be seen from the fact that cross-Strait discourses are not necessarily always hostile, it is clear that differences in national identity claims by Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese users are likely to surface in CMC discussion boards.…”

The State-Society Interaction in the Process of Taiwan’s Democratization from 1990 to 1992

“…He argues that the process of Taiwan's democratization is a process of "transformation" in which the ruling elites controlling the authoritarian state played a leading role in Taiwan's democratization. Yun-Han CHU and Jih-Wen LIN ( [11], 123) also argue that it was the ruling elites who democratized Taiwan by adopting the policy of Taiwanization and carrying out multi-phased democratic reform. Following their arguments, it is reasonable to say that the state played a bigger role than the society in Taiwan's democratization process: it was the authoritarian state that changed itself step by step during the transition period.…”

“…From this perspective, Chu and Lin's argument that the political struggle within the K.M.T. between the so-called "mainstream" (i.e., reformist) and "non-mainstream" (i.e., conservative) factions facilitated Taiwanization as well as Taiwan's democratization is a good one ( [11], 121-122). However, while I agree with their argument that a divided state played an important role in the process of Taiwan's democratization, I think they downplay the role played by the society.…”