Pragmatic democracy and the KMT
The comments below are from a post on Michael Turtons' blog.
Michael said: Most of us who support the DPP do so because of its long, strong support for a democratic and independent Taiwan. We oppose the KMT because historically the KMT has opposed those ideals
And I replied: ..and I love you guys/gals for it, I really do. Those are laudable goals, but I think they come from a Western perspective. Pragmatically speaking, young democracies with a colonial tradition say that they want democracy, but get things done under dictatorships and autocracy. There's a long line of South American, African and Southeast Asian countries that have had this unfortunate experience.
The KMT not only stood for independence, it fought for it when it kicked out the emperor and western 'concessions'. If it weren't for the KMT's stand for independence from the CCP, people in Twaian would not have the luxury of having this conversation.
The KMT does stand for democracy and independence, and it fought for it. We just don't agree on what path to take towards democracy, and who we need to be independent from.
I wanted to expand on that last statement a bit.
I believe that the KMT does stand for democracy, based upon the ideals of its founder, 國父孫中山, Dr. Sun Yat-Sen. He created democracy in China, but it failed because there was always someone who wanted to be the next dictator. These people would pay lip service to the principles of democracy and then seize control once they were in a position of power. This is why the modern incarnation of the KMT was formed - to create an organization and officer core that wouldn't turn its back on democracy once it was in power. Sun knew that a civilization accustomed to autocratic rule would not become active citizens overnight.
I believe the KMT and 蔣中正Jiang Zhong-Zhen, or Chiang Kai-Shek, correctly came to the same conclusion about Taiwan as well. Revisionist historians have made much of Taiwan's self-rule under the Japanese. Generalizing, this was colonial rubber stamping that held Japanese language, culture and society above all else. That's not democracy any more than the British governors were representatives of the American colonies.
From a historical perspective of developing democracies, poor, uneducated, unemployed people do not value democracy over food on the table. Democracy is a luxury, and not a natural state. Modern Russia's slide back to authoritarianism is one example of this. Democracies are also poor at generating the consensus necessary for massive economic and social changes. Thus, temporary oligarchy a la Plato's Republic until improved quality of life, education, and social values permit democracy to flourish. It's not crazy - it's realistic, and it has the best intentions.
I think it is important to consider the 'crimes' of martial law within their context, as being done with good intentions. Locking up the opposition in a time of war is a tradition found in western democracies. Lincoln did it, Wilson and Roosevelt did it too. Killing the opposition isn't quite so American, but who are to devalue those choices now with the omniscience of hindsight? I credit today's democratic debate as vindication of those tough choices.
My next post will talk about the KMT and its support of independence.
Michael said: Most of us who support the DPP do so because of its long, strong support for a democratic and independent Taiwan. We oppose the KMT because historically the KMT has opposed those ideals
And I replied: ..and I love you guys/gals for it, I really do. Those are laudable goals, but I think they come from a Western perspective. Pragmatically speaking, young democracies with a colonial tradition say that they want democracy, but get things done under dictatorships and autocracy. There's a long line of South American, African and Southeast Asian countries that have had this unfortunate experience.
The KMT not only stood for independence, it fought for it when it kicked out the emperor and western 'concessions'. If it weren't for the KMT's stand for independence from the CCP, people in Twaian would not have the luxury of having this conversation.
The KMT does stand for democracy and independence, and it fought for it. We just don't agree on what path to take towards democracy, and who we need to be independent from.
I wanted to expand on that last statement a bit.
I believe that the KMT does stand for democracy, based upon the ideals of its founder, 國父孫中山, Dr. Sun Yat-Sen. He created democracy in China, but it failed because there was always someone who wanted to be the next dictator. These people would pay lip service to the principles of democracy and then seize control once they were in a position of power. This is why the modern incarnation of the KMT was formed - to create an organization and officer core that wouldn't turn its back on democracy once it was in power. Sun knew that a civilization accustomed to autocratic rule would not become active citizens overnight.
I believe the KMT and 蔣中正Jiang Zhong-Zhen, or Chiang Kai-Shek, correctly came to the same conclusion about Taiwan as well. Revisionist historians have made much of Taiwan's self-rule under the Japanese. Generalizing, this was colonial rubber stamping that held Japanese language, culture and society above all else. That's not democracy any more than the British governors were representatives of the American colonies.
From a historical perspective of developing democracies, poor, uneducated, unemployed people do not value democracy over food on the table. Democracy is a luxury, and not a natural state. Modern Russia's slide back to authoritarianism is one example of this. Democracies are also poor at generating the consensus necessary for massive economic and social changes. Thus, temporary oligarchy a la Plato's Republic until improved quality of life, education, and social values permit democracy to flourish. It's not crazy - it's realistic, and it has the best intentions.
I think it is important to consider the 'crimes' of martial law within their context, as being done with good intentions. Locking up the opposition in a time of war is a tradition found in western democracies. Lincoln did it, Wilson and Roosevelt did it too. Killing the opposition isn't quite so American, but who are to devalue those choices now with the omniscience of hindsight? I credit today's democratic debate as vindication of those tough choices.
My next post will talk about the KMT and its support of independence.
posted by Taiwan's Other Side at 4:20 PM
6 Comments:
You credit the KMT with securing the freedom of Taiwan's people from the CCP. Have you considered that had CKS and his regime not been so dictatorial and inept, the CCP wouldn't have risen to its current strength? I know it is a counterfactual and as thus can never be proven, but it seems to me that most history books agree that the CCPs numbers were inflated during the Civil War by the KMT's reckless conscription, street executions, and runaway inflation.
Additionally, Taiwan was given to the ROC by the Allies. Were it not for the KMT, Taiwan would not have been given to them but who knows what would have happened? It could have been left to Japan (and thus still be a free democratic country today), made independent (and possibly be a liberal democracy without the threat of invasion provided by a lost civil war), or just about anything else. Chiang Kai-shek didn't take Taiwan, it was given to him.
Yeah, I've considered it, and it was actually my view of the KMT before I came to Taiwan, straight out my high school history class.
After reading a few translated histories of the Chinese civil war from the KMT side, and then looking back on the American stuff, I actually support a theory held by KMT historians - that the US ambassador's staff was successfully infiltrated by the CCP. This lead to the miraculous softening in American attitudes towards the CCP, which led to a complete cut in US aid and material while the USSR was kicking its support of the CCP into its highest gear. There were abuses, but I think the sudden cut in aid and support is was what really made the difference.
oh, and I say the KMT fought for Taiwan because they defended it after it was given to them.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Profane Anonymous posted:
KMT losers don't know the first thing about fighting. They just know how to run away like the cowards that they are since WW2. If not for the brave Americans, the Japanese would still be kicking the **** out of their ****!!
Why don't you, KMT losers, move out of Taiwan. We could use less of **** like you!!
Anonymous, if you think the US won WW2, you're wrong. True, American supplies made a huge impact, but it was Chinese and Russian bodies that stopped Nazi and Japanese bullets.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home