Mandy @ POLI 333D

Related to my previous analysis on Taiwanese election and democracy, this article argues that because the Taiwanese election outcome was likely “manipulated” by powerful business leaders, Taiwanese democracy is flawed. The article slightly amazes me because it seems to argue that freedom of speech should be constrained by the concept of “corporate responsibility”, which does not seem to me a democratic element.

One of the scholars in the article claims that, “the essence of democracy lies in the people and their free will to vote for the candidate of their choice.” This statement however, does not contradict with the thinking of democracy. First, these business leaders are included in “the people”, therefore they are also entitled to the freedom of speech. This is especially true when diverse opinions from different actors (i.e. business leaders, working classes and etc.) in a democracy are valued. Furthermore, if the idea of “corporate responsibility” should be used to constrain the freedom of speech of businessmen, doesn’t it imply that we should also impose some ethical standards on the speeches and behaviors of the public? If so, how should we measure whether an action or a speech is ethical or not? Second, although these business leaders might have substantially influenced the public opinion, on the election day, the public was still the one who decided whom to vote, with no gun pointing to their heads by these business leaders (sorry I can’t think of a better way to illustrate my point….). Therefore, the public is easily influenced by these businessmen simply because they also concern about the economic interests of Taiwan, but not because they are irrational or the democratic system is flawed. As such, one can argue that the election result is legitimate because it reflects the view of the majority.

On the other hand, while those business leaders can be described as “irresponsible” because of their disregard of their influence in politics and hence public interests, it is unreasonable to condemn their behavior as against democracy. At most, one can argue that Taiwanese government is short of ethical constraints on its members, but not of democratic elements. To conclude, the article, or these scholars, should only claim Taiwanese democracy as flawed if these business leaders had “manipulated” not the public opinion but the electoral procedures. For example, if these businessmen happened to have bribed the officials involved in the election and have made their favorite candidate(s) win, then Taiwanese democracy can be justifiably argued as flawed. However, there is no such evidence (at least at the time being) about this kind of corruption or other undemocratic practices. Therefore, the argument made by these scholars appears to be ill-found.

p.s. The influence of agents other than political parties/elites on public opinion reported here, reveals another limitation of most minimalist accounts in addressing the importance of political and social institutions.

Tags: No Comments