When democracy can be foolish: referendum?

  What I would like to do here is draw a few parallels between Palestine and Taiwan concerning the status problems they are facing.

  Palestine has a very clear problem, and that is in not knowing what it wants as an entity. In fact, there are many paths available to Palestine, but the one that would be most gratifying – the reinstatement of Palestinian land as it was before the Israelis set their hearts on it.

  Similarly, Taiwan has many options, but the one that is least likely to happen in the near future is the one that is most idealistically desirable – to tell China to bug off. Basically we have to realize that if China doesn’t want us joining the U.N., the W.H.O., and various other international organizations, then it’s unlikely that we’ll be able to by making a fuss and hoping everyone would sympathize with us. (Every nation for herself, eh?)

  So what alternatives are available to us? How can we reach a consensus? The first idea I hit upon is a referendum, but then I realized that it’s not going to work that way. Politicians know people are idiots; the general public rarely makes it their business to look beyond what the media is told to tell them. There’s no time to dabble in political intrigue, for everyone has their own lives to attend to. So putting the fate of the people in its own hands with situations like this is hardly wise – either people are going to vote for some inscrutable ideology or because they want to exercise this right to vote, perhaps just to screw the politicians, without really knowing the consequences of their vote. So posing a referendum may sound like the most moral choice, what it actually does is this – shakes off responsibility and allows the people to screw themselves.

  So what a country’s leaders can do is to limit the choices that are given during a referendum and in the meanwhile imply that it is unpatriotic to disagree with the policies that they have set forth – when in fact patriotism is used as a cloudbank to defer the real responsibilities from a government. The government is responsible for the welfare of the people, and not the other way around. Patriotism is all well and good concerning recreational sport events (though I don’t believe patriotism should even be about that – but that’s for another time), but when it is used to stop a people from thinking rationally, for seducing people into committing mass genocide/suicide (1), it becomes an immoral tool of manipulation.

  The problem is that our (Taiwan) parties are facing a very difficult situation. There are many voices calling for them to take a stance (either for insisting on independence or eventual unification) and if they don’t claim one side or the other they are labeled according to which side they are said not to support. The reason for this is because some loud voices seem to believe that a strong stand is the only way to go forward (as current President Chen Shui-Bian seemed unable to hold on to during his unproductive terms, except for holding on to his seat).

  We rarely praise leaders for not taking a stance because it’s unexciting. However, in the issue of independence it may be to the greatest advantage of all for us not to take a stance for the time being. What we have now is a government that’s faced with the threat of China’s economic power taking a dent on our own economical growth and everyone’s running around like chickens with their heads cut off, making promises here and there, trying to look productive… trying, in short, to save their own necks. I believe what we need now is someone who’s a bit ambiguous about our position: who’s loyal to the people and wily as a fox; a strong man (2) that appears weak; someone who can bring us out of this gradual economical decline without being too stubborn about economical and diplomatic policies that may seem superficially good but damaging to us in the long run. We need a government that isn’t about feeling good but pragmatically efficient in what it does. We need a government that doesn’t pay attention to every idiot who thinks he’s right.(3)

  There are, however, differences between Palestine and Taiwan that need to be taken into consideration when one is mapping future alternatives for these countries. Most obvious is the difference in pseudo-patriotism. Palestinian and Taiwanese leaders have long been feeding their constituents the same tired old crap – that if they don’t support their policies, they don’t love their nation. Palestinians consent with silence; most Taiwanese don’t give a damn. Unless you’ve conned Taiwanese into believing that such courses are really for their good, blind-patriotism works only on the uninformed and dispossessed. The educated (of which there are many, seeing as our college entrants are brooking 100%) shrug, say “look what a dung-hill this country has become”, and emigrate. Palestinians are more confused because their situation is much less promising and (for a portion of them) their religion restricts their options to choose otherwise. Unfortunately, this situation is only going to deteriorate because their resources for education are slimming along with their livelihood. This is only going to create less informed future constituents. 

(1)   More poignant examples of this include Nazism, the Rwanda genocide, and the Peoples Temple tragedy.

(2)   By ‘man’ I’ll be encompassing women as well.

(3)   What we possibly need is a government that fosters (but does not seem to be directly connected with) a constant group of citizens that hates the PRC’s guts whenever they slander our national identity, but doesn’t require that the government act in retaliation (since it is obvious we have no power to do so). This will keep other nations aware of our desire to maintain our independence and leave open the opportunity for us to join the U.N. when we have more leeway.

Reference article: Taiwan referendum

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2007/08/29/2003376266

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •    •    •    •