Chapter II Literature Review
2.2 Civil Society and Democracy
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
12
between the state and independent classes”. (Hinnebusch, 2006, p.378) Potter elaborates the basic premise of the structural approach to democratization as “the particular interrelationship of certain structures of power-economic, social, political – as they gradually change through history provide constraints and opportunities that drive political elites and others along a historical trajectory leading toward liberal democracy”. (Potter, 1997, p.18)
Rather than emphasizing the economic or historical factors, transition theorist views “democratization as a process, led by cost-benefit calculations on the part of key actors”. (Cannon & Hume, 2012, p.1041) Potter states that “certain actions, choices, and strategies of political elites are beneficial to democratic transition, others are not”. (Potter, 1997, p.17) It focuses on the role of political elites rather than the people. It believes that elite bargaining is the key factor to the ultimate democracy.
This theory has been criticized that it is too elitist and its empirical studies work better for southern Europe but not Africa and China. (Hinnebusch, 2006, p.387)
Grugel proposes an alternative approach to focus on the interaction between the state, civil society and global political economy. She emphasizes the structural explanation along with social subjects and international context. In this context, she views democracies as “political systems comprising institutions that translate citizens’
preference into policy, have effective states that act to protect and deepen democratic rights, count on a strong participatory and critical civil society”. (Grugel, 2002, p.96) Drawing from that, the institutional construction should not be the only factor for democracy. The role of civil society, citizens’ perceptions, and social actors’
engagements should not be neglected in the discussion of democracy.
2.2 Civil Society and Democracy
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
13
When we propose the question about what kind of role the civil society plays in democracy, we will have different answers from different scholars. The role of civil society in democratization varies if we put it into different theoretical assumptions.
The democracy’s literature has been divided into two main streams of arguments- an institutional perspective and a societal perspective. An institutional perspective holder focuses on the influence of democratic procedure and political arrangement. This kind of procedural approach emphasizes that democracy is best performed through
delegation.
On the contrary, viewing democracy from a societal perspective will emphasize the substantive democratizing effects brought by civil society. Its lineage goes back to the classic democratic concept of Aristotle, Rousseau and Locke emphasizes the role of rightful citizens to the assumed democratic achievement. In recent years, the literature on participatory democracy has gained broadened academic attention.
Participatory democracy revitalizes from the classic conceptions of Rousseau and Locke’s democratic thought and the growing recognition of the deficits of
representative democracy. (Baiocchi, Heller, & Silva, 2011, p.1) Building on insights from the theoretical contestation, we can have a more complete interpretation of the role of civil society in the democratic development.
To the procedural democratic theorists, democracy is a set of representative institutions that added up individuals preferences. A well-institutionalized decision making process and fair participatory mechanisms enable political decisions that conform to the intrinsic value of democracy. The procedural approach theorists draw attention to the political interaction process and the democratic institutional designs.
The most notable scholars are Joseph Schumpeter and R. Dahl. Schumpeter regards democracy as an institutional decision making arrangement by political elites. He refers a democracy design as the following: “the democratic method is that
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
14
institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions which realizes the common good by making the people itself decide issues through the election of individuals who are to assemble in order to carry out its will.” (Schumpeter, 1976, p. 250) People empower the elected elites to govern the public, and democracy implemented through elections. Fair and competitive elections provide the legitimacy for the political decisions made by only few political elites and political parties. This theoretical hypothesis derives from the economic rationalism which the voters would vote for whom they think can best present their interests; while the representatives would compete for the votes by offering select policies. (Mackie, 2004, p.11) In other words, democracy is demonstrated in an electoral process in which citizens hold their
political control over the competing elites.
Robert Dahl has a competing perspective towards democracy. He believes that all members are to be entitled equally in the process of political participation. In his book Polyarchy 1971, he means to find out what kinds of institutional designs are favorable for associations and groups to express their collective appeals and for the opposition of the government to systematize into a political system in order to
compete in free and fair elections. Democracy is strengthened with a proper design of political institutions that pursue the six goals “1) elected officials, 2) free, fair and frequent elections, 3) freedom of expression, 4) alternative sources of information, 5) associational autonomy, and 6) inclusive citizenship.” (Dahl, 1998, p. 85) Dahl argues that “a key characteristic of democracy is the continuing responsiveness of the
government to demands from its citizens, considered as political equal.” (Dahl, 1971, p. 1) Institutional designs, such as the existence of competitive electoral systems, and citizen participations have been emphasized in the literature. A democratic country should be able to promote the expression of diverse values, pluralism, and ensure the equal participation of social groups. Powell further points out that a democratic
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
15
system features with “competitive elections in which most citizens are eligible to participate”. (Powell, 1982, p. 3) Quite similarly Schattschneider, “democracy is a competitive political system in which competing leaders and organizations define the alternatives of public policy in such a way that the public can participate in the decision-making process.” (Schattschneider, 1975, p. 141) Citizens and social organizations exercise their rights through elections and other avenues, such as lobbying, issue advocating, and social mobilization to influence the political process and to have democratic policy outcomes.
However, the sociological theorists criticize that this institutional approach
“confused democratic rights with democratic practice”. (Somers, 1993; Baiocchi, Heller, & Silva, 2011, p.23) This is because democratic institutions can be subverted by nondemocratic practice. Hence, the existing of a robust civil society acting as a countervailing power is a key factor to democracy. Deriving from that, civil society enters the mainstream of democratic development and becomes a key driving force for political reforms. As presented clearly by Grugel “democracy requires a thick civil society, able to represent the very different groups and interest in society and translate the preferences of the majority into policies and protect political, civil and social rights, as well as an effective state”. (Grugel, 2002, p.96)
On the one hand, civil society ensures the authority to keep its accountability and transparency. Carl Gersham states that the role of civil society is transformed and evolved during different stages of political development. He argues that the civil society can be a democracy initiator or facilitator in the beginning stages of the autocracy downfall and a monitor after the democratic institutions are set. (Gersham, 2000) On the other hand, civil society is where citizens practice and develop their democratic spirit and values. It encourages citizens’ political participation and fosters the forming of civil culture. Civil social groups encourage civic participation, provide
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
16
civic education, and promote democratic values against government power abuses.
Hence, civil society is a key “to realigning state-society relations in ways that expand citizen participation, increase representation and empowerment, and reinforce state responsiveness and accountability”. (Ottaway & Carothers 2000; Antlöv, Brinkerhoff,
& Rapp, 2008, p.1)
2.2.1 The Definition of Civil Society
To build a conceptual frame for this paper, a few key definitions of civil society will be presented. "Civil society" is where manifold social movements, associations and civil organizations constitute themselves and enjoy relatively autonomous power to advocate values and pursue individual or collective interests. (Stepan, 1988, pp.3-4;
Ngok, 2007, p.23) Among many other forms, social movements and civil social organizations are the most exhibit forms of civil society. From a dynamic perspective, civil society activities are usually described as “symbolic appeals against existing power structures and established cultural patterns” and their arena is “the public space independent of government institutions, the party system or the state structure”.
(Muller, 2006, p.314) This connotes the difference between the concept of the civil society and political society.
"Political society" is defined as the arena in which the political actors and the society organize themselves for legitimate right to gain control over public power and the state apparatus. (Stepan, 1988, p. 4; Linz and Stepan, 1996, p. 8) The political society and civil society are interconnected in affiliated networks but they are conceptually different in terms of power exercising. The political society tries to exercise complete control over state power, while the civil society manages to influence the state power through formal or informal political participation. (Weigle,
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
17
2000, pp. 49- 50) Thus, the civil society serves as a supplementary to political parties and increases the participation and the skills of all the various segments of society.
(Diamond, 1994, p.7-10)
Academic intellectuals agree that civil society acts as an intermediary entity between the private sphere and state. (Kumar, 1993; Diamond, 1994, p.5; Alexander 2006, p.31-34) It is a network of associational lift that represents “a patterned matrix of institutional relationships among cultural, economic, social, and political practices”.
(Somers, 1993, p.595) Diamond makes clear arguments on how the network is formed.
He stated that civil society entails citizens participating collectively in a public sphere
“to express their interests, passions and ideas, exchange ideas, exchange information, achieve mutual goals, make demands on the state, and hold state officials
accountable”. (Diamond, 1994, pp. 5-7) Through ways of communicative, the civil society practices democratic values over time and improves the political
accountability. In a similar way, Alexander states that civil society is where
“communicative institutions become free to broadcast interpretations that are not only independent of the state, but can challenge its commands”. (Alexander, 2006, p.108) Gellner further plainly emphasizes the role of civil society in democracy. He describes that “the process of democratization should rather be called a process of civil society, since democracy does not have a real meaning without civil society.” (Gellner, 1994, p. 184) He refers to civil society as a strong counterbalance to the state, while it does not prevent the state from dominating the rest of the society.
Anchored on that point, the composition of civil society is weaving in the political and economic context of the society and engaging with the state. Thus, Baiocchi, Helloer, and Silva call for a relational approach which “unpacks the sometimes contradictory relationships between the state and voluntary associations and the way in which these shifting relationships both reflect societal power and
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
18
shape the functioning of the state and civil society”. (Baiocchi, Heller, & Silva, 2011, p.28)
2.2.2 Basic functional dimensions of the civil society
On the basis of preceding arguments, some of the basic functional dimensions are presented in the relationship between civil society and the democratic state. Alexis de Tocqueville (1863) describes civil society as a counterbalance to the modern state, which strengthens democracy and functions as an intermediary between the individual and the state. Thus, the society can interact constructively with the state towards a better democratic development.
From the normative account, Muller argues that civil society formulates four basic functions- namely defensive, legitimizing, participative and integrative values.
(Muller, 2006, pp.318-319) One the one hand, civil society is able to defend against the abuse of state power because of its independent and intermediary essence. On the other hand, the state remains solid when it enjoys the legitimacy. Thirdly, the
participative function represents that civil society can facilitate citizens’ political involvement and establish democratic values. Tocqueville also argues that civil society with various components fit together, such as family and the community that fosters the social norms and trust necessary for people to shape lives in the public areas. (Tocqueville, 1863, p.132) Political tolerance, respect for rights, shared values and social connections are forged during the state-society interaction. Last but not least, civil society has an integrative function. It refers to civil society as where “the relationships of affinity and loyalty are formed”. (Dahrendorf 1997, p.58; Cohen 1999, p. 55; Muller, 2006, p.319) Quite similarly, Robert Putnam puts an emphasis on the dimension of civil society as social capital, which means “features of social life-
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
19
networks, norms and trust- that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives”. (Putnam, 1995, pp. 664 – 665)
Multiple social organizations are vital for democracy since they work
interactively and strengthen both the social and political connections. Building social capital, trust and shared values can be further transferred into the political sphere and help to hold society together, facilitating an understanding of the interconnectedness of society and interest within it. (Coleman,1988, pp.100-103 ; Uslaner, 2002, p.249;
Ishiyama, 2011, p.131)
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
20
2.3 Civil Society and Democratization in Taiwan
The role of civil society in democratization and democracy has been discussed in the first two sections of the literature review. The third part of this review will be various empirical discussions regarding Taiwan’s democratic development studies. Factors that triggered democratic initiation, patterns of its development, and causes of
democratic consolidation, are issues that scholars tried to untangle. From 1948-1986, nearly four decades of authoritarianism regime, in which the society was under suppression, Taiwan moved from liberalization to democratization. After the lifting of martial law in 1987, the expanding political freedom accompanied with economic development nurtured a growing civil society. The political environment changed again after 2000 when the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) won the presidential election for the first time since the long dominant Kuomintang regime. The
development of civil society in Taiwan is embedded in the political and economic configuration. Deriving from the first two sections, the review of Taiwan’s studies will focus on the discussion of the most prominent perspectives in Taiwan’s democratic development.
2.3.1 Taiwan democratization studies- the institutional perspective
From the institutional perspective, democratization and democracy were better
performed by institutional arrangements such as establishment of laws, organizational reforms, and elections. This is because new rules and democratic institutions can
“enhance the probability of the survival of a democracy by eliminating the residues of the authoritarian system that are incongruous to democratic governance.” (Tan, Yu, &
Chen, 1996, p.484) As Dickson argues that “[t]he organizational and personnel
reforms were accompanied by another change that proved instrumental to the eventual
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
21
democratization of Taiwan’s political system: the invigoration of the electoral system”.
(Dickson, 1995, p.58) Generally speaking, from 1947 to 1986, before the lifting of martial law, institutional approach focused on how the Kuomintang’s institutional designs such as organizational reforms and elections led Taiwan from liberalization to democratization. Organization reforms in the central organs and local party offices created wide-ranging personnel changes and recruit better-qualified candidates into the political system.
Elections were first initiated at the local levels such as township, county, and city levels. During the 1960s to l970s, local elections gradually became “a major
institution to assimilate emerging economic and social forces into the political system, and an indispensable vehicle for the political ascent of the native elite”. (Chu, 2001, p.119) Since 1972, supplementary popular elections entailed additional seats for the National Assembly and Legislative Yuan. The Elections empowered civil society with increasing political power and served as an “institutionalizing exit”- the function of elections transferred from a patronage system to an institutionalized feedback mechanism on the party’s performance. (Dickson, 1995, p.58) Besides, for the winning of elections, the ruling party adopted a more democratic procedural to select better-qualified party candidates. (Tien, 1992, p.50) The evolving of electoral
liberalization had gradually redefined the relationship between the state and the society.
In representative politics, a healthy party system which provides opportunities for turnover of power among ruling parties is an important sign of democracy. The opposition party, the DPP, was formally established in 1987. Since then, Taiwan’s democracy had marched beyond just conducting free and fair elections. Strong and institutionalized political parties had gradually taken shape over the past decade.
Multiple issues concerned with party politics had been discussed such as the impacts
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
22
of the electoral systems on party politics (Göbel, 2001 pp.15-19; Chu, 2008, p. 125;
Fell, 2010, p.195) and the influences of party systems on democratic consolidation.(Chow, 2002, pp.136-144)
However, this kind of institutional approach that democracy came along with establish of electoral democracy has been reexamined. The fulfillment of procedural conditions of democracy in Taiwan still has a long way to achieve a deepened democracy. Göbel identified that the electoral democracy was diminished when “the representative institutions were hijacked by vested interests groups”. (Göbel, 2001 p.19) Kuo also argues that multiple actors in the political arena might cause the distortion of institutional designs1 which have negative consequences on the democratic development of Taiwan. (Kuo, 2000, p.104)
2.3.2 Taiwan democratization studies- focusing on the societal perspective
The modernization theory emphasizes positive correlation between the
socio-economic development and democracy. Between 1960 and 1980, Taiwan’s export-led economic growth created conditions for social upward mobility. The middle-class intellectuals fueled the democratic movement and created liberalizing social consequences that the KMT had not fully anticipated. (Chen, 1989, pp.11-15) Industrialization and rapid economic growth leads to the change of Taiwan’s social strata.
The sustained economic growth strengthened the role of civil society in
1 Kuo analyses the interaction among the state, the KMT, local factions and conglomerates to argue how distortions in democratic institutions have been occurred. Because of the self-maximization behaviour of these institutional actors during the uncertain transitional phrase, it dampens the democratic development in Taiwan. See Kuo, C. T. (2000). Taiwan’s Distorted Democracy in Comparative Perspective. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 35(1), 85–111.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
23
democratization in the 1980s. Hsiao states that “the KMT’s democratizing stance did not happen spontaneously: it was a concession to the increasing demands from the mobilized civil society”. (Hsiao, 1996, p.8) As the middle class increased over time, they demanded more rights for political engagements and support for social issues, such as environmental protection, human rights, consumer rights, and equality of women. Social movements increased and called for more autonomous power. The civil society learned how to make claims on the state and formed a participatory political culture. (Hsiao, 1990, p.178)
The process reinforces the waves of political changes and the interactive actions between the civil society and the state have changed the state-society relationships to a negotiable extent. Understanding the importance of system stability, social activists did not resort to overthrown the regime with dramatic revolution. Instead, social activists demanded for socio-political reforms and constructed social movements, such as anti-nuclear activities, environmental worker movements, farmers and
fishermen’s right, anti- Linyuan Petrochemical Industrial Zone in 1988 and Wild Lily Movement in 1990. (Ho, 2010, p. 9) The civil participants expect appropriate
feedback mechanisms from the state rather than throw over the entire system to achieve their appeals. The role of civil society in Taiwan has evolved from a passive recipient to a more active participant.
Economic development created middle-class as well as political intellectuals.
Chen argues that “this new political opposition is essentially a middle-class
movement, the consequence of rapid economic development. Many of its members
movement, the consequence of rapid economic development. Many of its members