1 Chapter One: Introduction
1.3 Research method and analytical framework …
1.3.2 Analytical framework
1.3.2.1 A process and actor centered historical
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
8 1.3.2 Analytical framework
A ‘synthesized’ analytical framework to guide this historical analysis in extracting a deeper knowledge of the key elements throughout history which have influenced the unique development of democracy and national identity in Taiwan has been configured by the author to best suit the case of Taiwan. Many prominent theories have been proposed in regards to both the studies of national identity as well as that of democratic transition, however for the purpose of this study, a theoretical framework to address these congruent developments in Taiwan has been formulated, focusing on the historical processes and the roles played by key actors, specifically the political elite, in shaping the development of these two processes. There are many factors and theories which have attempted to define both of these processes in general as well as specifically concerning the scenario as they have developed in Taiwan, and the theoretical perspective presented here is not limited to but has been largely inspired by the constructivist theory of national identity and the transition theory of democratization in order to most accurately and effectively address the case of Taiwan. This is not to completely negate other theories such as Lipset’s modernization theory, which has previously been commonly linked to Taiwan’s development and which will still be referenced in this dissertation. Rather the theoretical outline constructed here will incorporate the relevant and overlapping principles supported by the constructivist and political transition theories to best grasp the historical relationship and how this influenced and was influenced by the motivations and actions of the respective agents in Taiwan. It is imperative to first outline some key characteristics of the influential theories which are guiding this study, followed by addressing more specifically the key influence which these theories have shed on the guiding historical process and actor-centered analytical framework which will be applied specifically for the case of the development of national identity and democracy as experienced in Taiwan.
1.3.2.1 A process and actor centered historical framework
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
9
There are two pertinent theories which are responsible for the process- and actor- oriented theoretical framework which is guiding this dissertation, and those are the theory of political transition and the constructivist theory of national identity. Initially these theories may more commonly be viewed as methods to separately analyze the one democratic transition and the other, the formation of national identity. However, when treated together these theories prove not only to share many overlapping traits but also to support a comprehensive framework which is more effective than any single theory in explaining the development of and relationship between democracy and national identity in Taiwan. This section will begin by presenting a review of the common theoretical discourse on both transitional theories as well as constructivist notions regarding national identity, referring to the research of prominent scholars in their respective fields. The focus will then turn to examine the intersection of these theories as they will here be adapted to examine the processes of democratization and national identity formation as they have occurred in Taiwan.
The first theory introduced here which has provided a great influence for the framework of this dissertation is the theory of political transition. In regards to discussing democratization, there are three general types of theoretical approaches commonly applied: the modernization theory, structuralist theory and transition theory (Potter, 1997, p.12). The modernization approach, established by Martin Seymour Lipset in his 1963 work The Political Man, is a prominent theory which has previously attracted much attention as a popular model employed to support Taiwan’s successful democratization.
David Potter defines this school of thought as “emphasizing a number of social and economic requisites either associated with existing liberal democracies or necessary for successful democratization” (1997, p. 12). Lipset very clearly expresses the main theme of this theory, which is “The more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chance it will sustain democracy" (p.31). As one of the four “Asian tigers,” the economic success of Taiwan beginning in the early 1960s preceding its political liberalization, created a frenzy of scholars viewing the island, along with its neighboring countries such as South Korea, as prime models for this “wealth theory” (Pye, 1985; Hing, 1997). However this model and its credibility in wholly explaining the successful transition of democracy in Taiwan has since been criticized and challenged.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
10
The modernization theory began losing steam as exceptions to the concept of economic predisposition supporting democratic transitions began popping up around the world, such as in Singapore and Latin America (Potter, 1997, p. 12), and a reexamination of Taiwan’s case proves that although socioeconomic influences continue to be important in discussing Taiwan’s successful transition, this theory excludes many of the key factors essential to the island’s political transition. Almond (1970) warns that “The movement of modernization might be in a liberal democratic direction, but it might with equal probability be in an authoritarian direction.” Rustow succinctly expresses the discrepancy left behind by the modernization approach and filled in with the political transition approach, writing that “modernists ask ‘what factors can best preserve or enhance the health and stability of a democracy’, while transition theorists ponder ‘how a democracy comes into being in the first place’” (Rustow, 1970, p. 340). This dissertation will not completely disregard the value of modernization principles in Taiwan’s democratization process, and according to many prominent transitional theorists such as Rustow, O’Donnel and Linz, “economic development helps to trigger the actions of competing elites busy crafting the democratic compromise” (Potter, 1997, p. 24). The political transition theory will be adapted to the analytical framework of this thesis in order to fully account for the varied factors which have played essential roles in the process of democratic development on the island.
A common “reference point” of the political transition theory (Haggard &
Kaufman, 1997; Potter, 1997) is linked to Dankwart A. Rustow’s 1970 article
"Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model." Rustow's article has largely served to “reject the ‘functional’” approaches that focused on democracy's economic, sociopolitical, and psychological prerequisites and instead focus on agency, process, and bargaining in explaining democratic transitions” (Haggard & Kaufman, 1997, p. 263).
Potter (1997) defines the transition approach as “emphasizing political processes and elite initiatives and choices that account for moves from authoritarian rule to liberal democracy” (p. 12). Under this school of thought, O’Donnel and Schmitter like Rustow break away from the earlier studies on political liberalization (Lipset, Dalh, etc.) and argue that democratization is understood as a complex historical process (Chu, 1992, p.
3). Potter goes further to argue that “Democracy is produced by the initiatives of human
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
11
beings” (p. 15), which will be discussed through this thesis in regards to the political elite, including those involved in the opposition, along with the greater social forces of civil society. Since Rustow’s work on this theory, many more studies have arisen focusing on the process of transition from authoritarian rules to democracies, such as those from Guillermo O'Donnell and Philippe C. Schmitter, Adam Przeworski, Juan J.
Linz, Giuseppe Di Palma, Michael Burton, Richard Gunther, and John Higley, and although these interpretations all differ slightly, there are a number of commonly shared principles which are highly relevant for Taiwan’s scenario.
Rustow (1970) outlines four historical stages on the “route to democracy” which largely correlate with this historical analysis to accurately explain the process and key actors involved in Taiwan’s transition. The first stage presented by Rustow is “a phase when national unity within a given territory is being established.” Potter explains this preliminary phase as constituting a majority beginning to “share a political identity,” such as “we are British, we are French,” or in the case of Taiwan, ‘we are not Mainland Chinese’ (1997, p. 14). The second stage outlined is what Rustow refers to as that of
“inconclusive political struggle,” during which “new… elite (are) coming to prominence and demanding a significant place in the polity.” Although this phase is markedly different for each country with varying historical paths, “there is always major conflict between opposed groups” (Potter, 1997, p. 14). The third phase in Rustow’s outline marks “the first transition or decision phase, a ‘historical moment’ when the parties to the inconclusive political struggle decide to compromise and adopt democratic rules which gives each some share in the polity,” and the final stage is labeled the “habituation phase,”
in which “The conscious adoption of democratic rules during the ‘historical moment’
may have been seen by the parties…as necessary rather than desirable due to compromises that had to be made; gradually, however, such rules, once made, become a habit” (Potter, 1997, p. 14). This historical analysis of Taiwan’s progression of democracy and national identity will be shown to very closely progress as outlined by Rustow, along with the crucial actors involved in realizing the democratization as defined under the transition theory.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
12
In addition to the general outline provided by Rustow, Stephan Haggard and Robert Kaufman’s 1997 article “The Political Economy of Democratic Transitions,”
provides a number shared themes which are commonly promoted among the community of transitional theorists explaining democratization. One of these collective themes presented in this article is that “the key actors in the transition process,” include the political elites in both the government as well as those involved in the opposition movements (p. 265). Shain and Linz advise that “Crucial to the outcome of democratic transitions is the question of who governs in the interim period and the way they use their power” (1995, p. 21). Under this theoretical perspective it is commonly believed that the actors play essential roles in instigating and promoting the political transition, as is outlined above by Rustow, towards democratic rule. Huntington argues this as “the nature of the process” which he defines as “the way democrats and anti-democrats interact and the strategies employed by both sides in the process” (1991, p. 108-110). Michael Burton (1987), Richard Gunther (1992), and John Higley (1987, 1992) have attributed democratic consolidation to "elite settlements" and "elite convergence,” while Adam Przeworski (1991) also emphasizes the importance of the roles of the different actors involved alongside the process of democratic transition (Chu, 1992, p. 4). When discussing the vital role which the political elite play in political transition, the motivation and strategy which underlie the promotion of the transition is also a key concept under this theory.
Haggard and Kaufman outline a second common theme shared among theories of political transition, which is that “actors behave strategically; their actions are influenced by expectations concerning the behavior of allies and rivals” (1997, p. 265). This is to take into account the factors which motivate the relevant actors to guide political transition one way or another, which in the face of political struggle is often influenced by threats or possible gains to legitimacy of rule. This latter shared point is also closely connected to the final common feature explained by Haggard and Kaufman, which is that
“democratization is the outcome of explicit or implicit negotiation; new institutions are
‘bargains among self-interested politicians’ (p. 265). Under this final point, the successful transition towards a democracy comes from successful political ‘negotiation,’ which therefore must have benefits for all of the actors involved in order for them to
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
13
consciously promote democratic transitions. The very actor and process-centered perspective underlying the political transition theories discussed above can be found to relate to and resonate within the historical and socially influenced constructivist theory of national identity.
The second theory which has provided great inspiration for the analytical framework applied in this dissertation, and which is well-suited to this theoretical adaptation in conjunction with the political transition theory, is the constructivist perspective of national identity formation. The field of constructivism has in recent times commonly been associated with the study of national identity. The constructivist theory of national identity has been presented by those such as Gellner, Anderson, Smith, Wendt and Peter Katzenstein, placing special emphasis on the historic role of the people creating nations, and “social factors” such as culture, norms and politics which may create, affect or shift trends in national identity. According to the constructivist reasoning, “the interests of states (nations) are shaped by their identities, while state identities (and therefore interests) themselves are subject to change in the process of interaction”
(Alexandrov, 2003). Before delving into an analysis of the more recent constructivist discourse on national identity and its impact on ‘the state’, it is important to provide a brief overview introducing some of the earlier resources on primordialism (Smith and Armstrong) and constructivism (Gellner, Anderson, Deutch and Renan) which trace the study of national identity far back to its historical roots.
Primordialism according to John Armstrong, emphasizes “the belief that nations have usually existed from time immemorial” (1982, p. 9). This conception of the nation suggests that “nations are ‘real’ (not imagined) entities. Nations so defined differ from other territorially defined units of governance (such as city-states, empires, and states, which are not nation-states) because their inhabitants defines their identities in cultural terms exclusively” (Hass, 1997, p. 41). According to Anthony Smith, the continued existence of states may be viewed as proof of the ‘primordiality’ which the nation embodies. Smith notes these visions as “heavily influenced by an organic nationalism which posited the ‘rebirth’ of nations after centuries of somnolence, amnesia and silent invisibility” (2004, p. 53). This school of thought argues that national identity “is
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
14
immutable…(and) cannot be created or altered through social construction or through purposeful manipulation,” with Smith presenting the failed efforts of nation-building such as from the communist elites, as a clear example of the “cultural and primordial limitation” on the purposeful efforts from above to construct a strategic identity (Dawisha, 2002, p. 4). Primordialism, however, has received much criticism, being argued by those in the constructivist school of thought as the “straw man of ethnic studies….for supposing that ethnic affiliations are given rather than chosen” (Horowitz, 2004, p. 72-73).
The constructivist perspective, on the other hand, such as stipulated by Ernest Gellner, attributes the formation of nations rather as a product of nationalism formed amongst the people: “Nations as a natural, God given way of classifying men are a myth.
Nationalism…sometimes takes pre-existing cultures and turns them into nations, sometimes invents them” (1983, p. 48). Hugh Seton-Watson very plainly states that “all I can find to say is that a nation exists when a significant number of people in a community consider themselves to be a nation” (1977, p. 5). This school of thought differs from primordialism in that it understands national identity as being susceptible to change as social interactions change, viewing a nation as “wholly subjective” rather than
‘immutable’ (Dawisha, 2002, p. 5). Reaching further back to earlier studies of nationalism, Deutsch imparts great importance on the ‘social mobilization’ and the cohesion of a nation as in large part dependent on the “ability to communicate effectively, and over a wider range of subjects, with members of one large group more than with outsiders (1969, p. 97). Benedict Anderson takes the constructivist approach towards national identity, addressing the importance of a group’s own “active involvement in the construction and reconstruction of identities, negotiating boundaries, asserting meanings, interpreting their own pasts, resisting the imposition of the present, and claiming the future” (1991, p. 8). The more classical literature as briefly discussed here is vital to the discussion of the constructivist theory of national identity, however the work of Alexander Wendt which is more commonly associated under the school of International Relations, is also relevant in the discussion of national identity as it will be related to the case of Taiwan.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
15
According to Wendt, “Constructivists are interested in the construction of identities and interests and, as such, take a more sociological than economic approach…On this basis, they have argued that states are not structurally or exogenously given but constructed by historically contingent interactions” (Wendt, 1994, p. 385).
Wendt presents the claim that “states are socially constructed,” which infers both the importance of society in shaping the interests and actions of the state, but also the importance of states’ strategies towards maintaining support from and leading the direction of society’s interests (1994, p. 385). Yun-han Chu writes in 2004 that
“Essentially, national identities are not inborn but are socially and politically constructed sentiments that are subject to change and manipulation, especially under the intensive mobilization of political elites at times of regime transition” (Chu, 2004, p. 498). In 2010, Cheng presents a clear definition of the impact of the state in molding national identity, explaining that “Through such socialization mechanisms as education and state policies, individuals are exposed to the cultures and norms of the society as well as the historical memories of the nation” (2010, p. 2). In regards to the role which national identities plays in influencing the actions and movements of states, Wendt emphasizes “the role of identity as a factor that shapes states’ interests and behaviours and attaches a high degree of importance to the dynamic interplay between agents and structures” (p. 1999, p. 193).
Wendt also argues that “interests (of state actors) are dependent on identities,” signifying that motivations and changing structures of the state can consequently be at least in part contributed to the trends of national identity. This study of Taiwan in particular will take into account both the impact which shifting national identity has had on the policies of the political elite as well as the influence of the political elite through tracing the evolution and shifts of national identity on the island.
Under this constructivist framework for national identity, it is apparent that there are a broad range of social factors such as culture, religion, and language, political factors, and the common “shared historical memories” (Anderson, 1983) of the people which are responsible for contributing to the conception of different types of national identities.
Benedict Anderson (1983) and Anthony Smith (1991) both argue against the ‘Western’
conception of national identity which tends to relate and limit national identities to their geographic territory. In Anderson’s work Imagined Communities, he fights against
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
16
distinguishing nationalities along “East and West lines,” but rather premises the formation of national identities on “ethnic, state, cultural and socioeconomic traits that emerge over time as a result of events” (White and Cheng, 1993, p. 162). With this multitude of influential factors, there are a variety of different forms of national identity which may form, however for the purpose of this paper, the author will focus on two forms of national identity which are relevant to the case of Taiwan, that of “ethnic” and
“civic” national identity. These concepts will be expanded on and defined in more detail as they appear in the body of this dissertation, however the main contrast between the two distinct formations is neatly captured here by David Brown (1994):
“The idea that a group of people might constitute a “nation” with some right to political autonomy sometimes rests mainly on the claim that they have common ethnic ancestry and similar ethnocultural attributes, and sometimes mainly on the
“The idea that a group of people might constitute a “nation” with some right to political autonomy sometimes rests mainly on the claim that they have common ethnic ancestry and similar ethnocultural attributes, and sometimes mainly on the