Archive for the ‘Democracy’ Category

The Democracy of Abstraction – Hyperallergic

Thomas Nozkowski (19442019) never hedged his bets. One bet was that abstract painting did not have to be elitist; it could be as open to subject matter as Andy Warhol supposedly was. The difference is that Nozkowski was not interested in the second-hand experiences we all supposedly share. He believed that each persons experience of the everyday was fundamentally unique and set out to honor that in his work.

By 1974, when making large-scale paintings had become commonplace, and subject matter had largely been banished from abstraction in favor of paint-as-paint, he had formulated an alternative approach based on two conclusions. First, he decided to work on a 16-by-20-inch format using prepared canvas boards, which are available in any art supply store, implicitly rejecting the masterpiece tradition and the belief in the artist as a heroic figure. Second, every painting he did would come from a personal experience, which he defined in the broadest possible terms. This is how he defined it in an interview we did in The Brooklyn Rail (November 2010):

Events, things, ideas anything. Objects and places in the visual continuum, sure, but also from other arts and abstract systems.

In this merging of intimate scale and personal experience, Nozkowski established links between art and life that challenged a number of presumptions regarding abstract painting and its relationship to the viewer. Are you making art for the wealthy class or for ordinary individuals when you work on a monumental scale? Can you make a painting that honors the basic enigmatic nature of being human without aligning yourself with any philosophical, religious, or aesthetic doctrine? Can you see things in abstraction without those things becoming symbolic?

As I see it, these questions lead to further inquiry, including whether or not you could stay in touch with the material nature of your existence and not take refuge in the idea of transcendence. Finally, can you make a painting that is subtle, nuanced, and complex while also being visually immediate? Can you proceed with painting while rejecting gesture and accepted solutions such as the grid and hard-edged forms? Could you make a painting that did not rely on a formula? That Nozkowski attained what he set out to do is one of the great and inspiring achievements in postwar art.

These were some of the thoughts I had when I went to see Thomas Nozkowski: The Last Paintings at Pace Gallery (September 10October 23, 2021). I was also apprehensive, as I remembered Nozkowski talking to me about these paintings shortly before Susan Dunne, who was then working for Pace Gallery, came to see them at his studio, and I saw them for the first time on the day of his funeral. I was concerned because I knew I had seen them but not really looked at them and I wondered if I could actually ponder what was there.

The exhibition includes 15 paintings dated between 2015 and 2019. All but one measure 22 by 28 inches, a scale he began working with after more than 20 years of using the 16-by-20-inch format. Nozkowski also switched to painting on linen on panels, which gave him the resilient surface he wanted, as he often scraped down his paintings and started over.

The exhibitions outlier is Untitled (9-27) (Pulpit Rock) (oil on linen, 30 by 40 inches, 2018), which I believe is the last painting in a series of 10 done on this scale. Conceived of in the late 1990s, each painting in the series was inspired by a specific place in the Shawangunk Mountains, which Nozkowski began hiking as a teenager, and to which he and his wife, the artist Joyce Robins, and their son, Casimir, moved near in 1994, when they left Manhattans Lower East Side. Pulpit Rock is named for a unique rock formation in the Sams Point Preserve near Cragsmoor, NY that once served as an outdoor podium from which itinerant clergy preached to the local residents, all of which Nozkowski knew, but the viewer need not know when looking at the painting.

Nozkowskis paintings openly invite you to contemplate a complex visual configuration that is brimming with color, myriad shapes and lines, and unexpected shifts in vocabulary and color, with neither painterly flourishes nor signature gestures; this is what I find powerful and compelling about them. It takes a supremely confident and ambitious artist to work this way. The only comparison that I can think of is the great Russian pianist Sviatoslav Richter, who could sight read and play a complex piece that he had never played before, and who never showed off while playing.

I was struck by the fact that there is never a hurried moment in these paintings, which were done when Nozkowski was well aware that he had a fatal disease. At no point does he call overt attention to his personal circumstances in these last works. Knowing that he was dying did not make him change his patient and devoted approach to making a beautiful and mysterious painting that he felt was true to a specific experience. If anything, he seemed intent on slowing time down and making paintings that are full of different kinds of lines, from delicate to sturdy, and unique shapes that never become eccentric or private signs. Is it possible to celebrate the innate wild beauty of the indifferent universe while acknowledging ones inevitable disappearance? Nozkowskis paintings convince me that it can be done.

Completed in 2019 Nozkowski died on May 9 of that year Untitled (9-63) and Untitled (9-69) convey the way he faced his impending mortality. In both paintings, there is a sense of tension between what is contained within the paintings physical boundaries and what extends beyond. This tension speaks to so many things about living in the world that I dont think the artists mortality is the sole subject. At a point when ones focus could understandably be narrowing, Nozkowski directs the viewers attention to that which is beyond the individuals sight.

In Untitled (9-69) Nozkowski surrounds a large, irregular, egg-yolk-yellow circle with two distinct bands composed of various shapes, against a scumbled ground in which tracesof blue and other colors can be seen. Parts of both bands are cut off by the paintings physical edges. For the inner band, Nozkowski painted different black shapes (rectangles, circles, trapezoids, triangles), against the yellow ground but forming a separate entity. As he worked his way around the inside of the circle, he would develop a particular pattern of related black shapes before changing from small, solidly colored black rectangles to a group of larger black circles to a group of yellow circles with thick black circumferences.

The incrementally painted black shapes reminded me of mosaics, each one unique. The changes from one kind of shape to another underscore the passage of time. An outer band is made of interlocking, softly colored forms. At different points, the density of the colors shift from muted to solid, though these shifts follow no distinct pattern.

In Untitled (9-63), a turquoise, jigsaw-puzzle-like shape outlined in black occupies a large part of the paintings upper left-hand corner, while a three-colored, irregular triangular shape with a black edge extends in diagonally from the paintings right side, from below the upper right edge to the bottom edge. These two distinct flat shapes are joined together by a thin, multi-sectioned band that traverses the painting below the middle. The sections of the joining band change color from turquoise to green without recalling the spectrum or any other logical shift, while, at the same time, not appearing arbitrary.

Between these two shapes, the black line defining their edges and separating the oneon the right into three different-colored sections divides the off-white plane into interlocking sections with round and slightly curved edges. The solidly colored shapes extend beyond the paintings physical edges, while a uniform black line defines shapes that fit together, but are not standardized.

As in Untitled (9-69), Nozkowski establishes a tension between what is within the paintings rectangle and what extends beyond its physical edges. At no point does anything he makes come across as short hand for something else; line, shape, and color are always what they are, even as their juxtapositions and shifts stir up associations by the viewer.

Employing the basic elements of painting, from drawing in paint to planar shapes ranging from the solid to the semi-transparent, to different palettes of color, to scumbled and watery surfaces, Nozkowski never became formulaic. If, earlier in his career, he made what the poet and critic Marjorie Welish called a vexed shape in an abstract field, he moved beyond that to acknowledging the paintings edges. Knowing the end was fast approaching, he opened up the focus of his paintings and extended the forms beyond what he could see, recognizing that there was a continuum between the individual and infinity which he not only accepted, but praised. He realized that everything he saw and experienced, whether while hiking or visiting a museum, possessed a complexity that he wanted to, and did, honor. The art world has yet to grasp the depth of his greatness and grace.

Thomas Nozkowski: The Last Paintings continues at Pace Gallery (540 West 25th Street, Chelsea, Manhattan) through October 23.

Read the original here:
The Democracy of Abstraction - Hyperallergic

The Left Doesn’t Care About ‘Democracy,’ They Just Want Their Way – The Federalist

Watch the video for the monologue, plus an interview with Washington Free Beacon Senior Editor Billy McMorris on the corruption in our system, and why hes optimistic.

Canada held an election a few weeks ago. Dont worry that you missed it; you wouldnt have heard much of anything in American media. Why not? Because it all went to plan, thats why.

To catch up on the northern contest, the Conservative Party got the most votes, 5.7 million, compared to just 5.5 million for Justin Trudeaus ruling Liberal Party but Trudeaus Party got more seats in the House of Commons. A lot more, in fact: 159 seats to just 119. Why? Canada uses the same system as the United Kingdom, or our own House of Representatives: Its first-past-the-post in 338 single-member districts.

By the way, thats the second time in a row this has happened. The Liberal Party lost the popular vote last time too, and still they got the most seats.

The point here isnt to complain. This is the system Canada uses; every party understands it, and there isnt anything innately unfair about using single-member districts and the regional representation they bring.

But notice something that hasnt happened: Nobody has gone on TV, either in Canada or here in the United States, to moan about Justin Trudeau being a threat to democracy. There arent any left-wing non-profits producing reports about Canada being a flawed democracy or a failing democracy or partly democratic or a democratic dictatorship.

By the way, there are countries they say that about. Countries like this one. Remember all the wailing when Donald Trump won in 2016? People were literally screeching in the streets. Trump isnt the president hes illegitimate!

They kept this lie up for four whole years. They made that lie the focal point of their mission to paralyze actual democratic government, using any means necessary from unelected judges to unelected spies to get their way, and all in the name of democracy.

In 2020, Foreign Policy magazine ran an article with 10 reasons President Trump was becoming a dictator. Reason number 3? Politicizing the civil service, military, National Guard, or the domestic security agencies. Author Stephen Walts example of Trump doing that was that he held a photo-op in a church that rioters set on fire, and that he appointed William Barr, a former attorney general, as his attorney general.

Reason number 4 was, Using government surveillance against domestic political opponents. His evidence was that Trump wanted to call Antifa a terrorist organization, which might have caused the FBI to monitor them.

Reason 6? Appointing justices to the Supreme Court when there were vacancies.

Now, if you go and check Walts Foreign Policy articles this year, youll notice there havent been any about the looming Biden dictatorship even though hes actually politicizing the military by using it to teach critical race theory and conducting an ideological witch hunt for extremists.

And if its bad for Trump to appoint justices to the Supreme Court for normal vacancies, what does it mean that Democrats are loudly calling to pack the Supreme Court and the Biden administration has openly considered the possibility?

If you want answers to those questions, you wont get them from Professor Walt hes back to writing about U.S. foreign policy debacles. No shortage of material there, professor.

But you know whats really going on here. You know why Professor Walt and so many others were freaking out about democracy last year and every year since 2016, but dont seem to care about it this year, be it in Canada or the United States: Its because they dont care about democracy. At least not the way you might.

To most Americans throughout most of American history, democracy meant a system of government where we hold elections, cast votes, and choose lawmakers and leaders. For the left, however, democracy means something different. To them, democracy just means the Democratic Party.

Remember when Gov. Scott Walker survived a recall attempt back in 2012? The night that happened, a Democratic voter appeared on CNN and said, This is the end of democracy. The end of the U.S. as we know it just happened. This is it. Democracys dead. At the time, he meant it: A Republican was governor of Wisconsin and might do Republican things instead of Democrat things. We all know thats not democracy.

When Kyrsten Sinema or Joe Manchin decide to represent their own constituents and say theyre not happy with a three-and-a-half trillion-dollar spending bill to remake the American social contract, thats not democracy either, because true democracy is just Joe Biden doing whatever he wants when he wants to. To many on the left, democracy simply means neoliberalism. Right now, democracy also means the Deep State so long as the Deep State is on their side; the side of democracy.

In the Arizona Republic, op-ed writer E.J. Montini complained Sinema is going to squander her chance to save democracy. After Democratic activists stalked Sinema into a bathroom to harass her, one climate activist remarked, Not being able to pee in peace is a reasonable consequence for betraying democracy.I suppose it beats tarring and feathering.

Id note, MSNBCs Medhi Hassan bravely tweeted, that democracy continues to hang in the balance while we argue over the rights and wrongs of bathroom protests. So brave, Medhi; so meta.

Or how about this: They call themselves Democrats and they will be the ruination of this nation, The Views Joy Behar declared. Manchin and Sinema must be brought to task; they are the enemies right now of the democracy.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Arizona Democrats unfathomable opposition to progress is a win for her hedge-fund, Big Pharma donors, and a huge loss for democracy.Oh, and she and Manchin are essentially political suicide bombers waging a jihad for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.Not demented at all.

According to someone named John of the Young Turks, the minimum bars for a functioning democracy include 1) not electing Donald Trump, and 2) not electing someone like Kyrsten Sinema. He could have added 3) Doing what John says to do.

Of course, nothing Sinema is doing is betraying democracy in any way whatsoever; what shes doing is betraying the Democratic Partys priorities. But of course thats enough, isnt it?

Sinema and Manchin join a long and distinguished line of enemies of democracy, stretching from President John Adams to Sen. Barry Goldwater, and of course stopping over President George W. Bush (who now opposes Trump so is once again a friend of democracy).

Theyre joined on this list by every single person who ever attended a Tea Party rally, and the 74 million Americans who voted against democracy in the last election. In fact, it might be that a majority of Americans voted against democracy last year, but good luck finding the full truth: Its only OK to question elections when the democracy loses.

But its not just democracy, of course; for the left, its any system. Take schools: Our generation churns out multiple generations of graduates unprepared for work and incapable of functional literacy. So is the system broken? Not at all. That system is only broken if the students come out conservative or religious, or if parents are given any semblance of choice about what their children learn. If any of those things happened, that would be un-American. Probably anti-democratic too.

Democracy means parents dont get a say in what schools teach. Them theres the rules.

Or how about the courts? The courts are great when theyre used to paralyze a White House simply trying to defend its borders and control who enters the country. Those are working courts; very democratic. But what if the courts rule against the left?

What if the Supreme Court says that we have a border? What if they say that affirmative action is illegal racial discrimination? What if the Supreme Court finally notices that, wait a minute, abortion is never mentioned in the Bill of Rights and calling it a constitutional right is absurd? Well, that would mean the system is broken and disgustingly undemocratic. Court-packing is back on the menu, boys!

Lets not forget the Electoral College or its northern kin, Canadas system of parliamentary representation. Prime Minister Trudeau is the result of a beautiful system; a fully functioning democracy. President Donald Trump? Well, then you get into another area.

Know this: Your role in this democracy is not actual opposition, but managed opposition. Most professional D.C. Republicans get that. If the Democrats, for example, want to pass a bill that completely remakes the governments involvement with the citizenry from before birth until death, the GOP just asks them to cut back on the cost a little; make it cheaper. Managed opposition. Know your role, sort of thing.

Ronald Reagan didnt know his place; Trump certainly wouldnt play his part either and they hated them for it. Dont let any historic revisionism ever hide that: They treated Reagan with contempt, and called him a dangerous and psychotic dullard too.

We can go on and on, but you get the point: The system works when it works for the left, and only when it works for the left. You get the point and so do they. Now its just time to stop playing the part youve been assigned.

Here is the original post:
The Left Doesn't Care About 'Democracy,' They Just Want Their Way - The Federalist

Reflections on the ‘quasi-federal’ democracy – The Hindu

Despite a basic structure, Indian federalism needs institutional amendment to be democratically federal

Events coinciding with the jubilee of Indias Independence draw attention to the federal structure of Indias Constitution, which is a democratic imperative of multi-cultural India, where the constituent units of the sovereign state are based on language, against competing identities such as caste, tribe or religion. This built-in structural potential for conflict within and among the units, and that between them and the sovereign state, need imaginative federal craftmanship and sensitive political management. The ability of the Indian Constitution to keep its wide-ranging diversity within one sovereign state, with a formal democratic framework is noteworthy. Possibly, with universal adult suffrage and free institutions of justice and governance it is nearly impossible to polarise its wide-ranging diversity within any single divisive identity, even Hindutva; so that, despite its operational flaws, the democratic structure and national integrity are dialectically interlinked. But its operational fault lines are increasingly denting liberal institutions, undermining the federal democratic structure as recent events have underscored.

First, the tempestuous Parliament session, where the Rajya Sabha Chairperson broke down (in August 2021), unable to conduct proceedings despite the use of marshals; yet, the House passed a record number of Bills amidst a record number of adjournments. Second, cross-border police firing by one constituent State against another, inflicting fatalities, which also resulted in retaliatory action in the form of an embargo on goods trade and travel links with its land-locked neighbour.

Such unfamiliar events of federal democracy are recurrent in India, except their present manifest intensity. Legislative disruption was described by a Union Law Minister (while in Opposition) as a legitimate democratic right, and duty. In the 1960s, the Troika around Lohia claimed its right to enter Parliament on the Janatas shoulders to exit on the Marshals; posters with labels such as CIA Agent were displayed during debates; suitcases were transferred publicly to save the government; occasionally, Honorable Members emerged from debates with injuries. This time, in the federal chamber, Honorable Members and Marshals are in physical contact both claiming casualties official papers vandalised and chairpersons immobilised. Even inter-State conflict has assumed a new dimension.

Such empirical realities have led scholars to conceptualise Indias Post-colonial democracy, and federalism, differently from their liberal role-models. Rajni Kotharis one party dominance model of the Congress system has now been replaced by the Bharatiya Janata Party; Myrdalls soft state is reincarnated in the Pegasus era with fake videos and new instruments of mass distraction and coercion. Galbraiths functioning anarchy, now has greater criminalisation in Indias democracy, which includes over 30% legislators with criminal records, and courtrooms turning into gang war zones; it is now more anarchic, but still functioning, bypassing any Dangerous Decade or a 1984.

Federal theorist K.C. Wheare analyses Indias centralized state with some federal features as quasi-federal. He underscores the structural faultlines of Indian federalism not simply as operational. So, while many democratic distortions are amenable to mitigation by institutional professionalism, Indian federalism, to be democratically federal, needs institutional amendment despite being a basic structure. Wheares argument merits consideration.

Democratic federalism presupposes institutions to ensure equality between and among the units and the Centre so that they coordinate with each other, and are subordinate to the sovereign constitution their disputes adjudicated by an independent judiciary with impeccable professional and moral credibility. But Indias federal structure is constitutionally hamstrung by deficits on all these counts, and operationally impaired by the institutional dents in the overall democratic process. Like popular voting behaviour, institutional preferences are based either on ethnic or kinship network, or like anti-incumbency, as the perceived lesser evil, on individual role-models: T.N. Seshan for the Election Commission of India, J.F. Ribeiro for the police or Justices Chandrachud or Nariman for the judiciary.

Indias federal structure, underpinned on the colonial 1935 Act which initiated provincial autonomy, attempted democratising it by: renaming Provinces to autonomous States; transferring all Reserved Powers to popular governance; constitutionally dividing powers between the two tiers; inserting federalism in the Preamble, and Parts 3 and 4 containing citizens Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles; but nothing about States rights, not even their territorial boundaries. This has enabled the Centre to unilaterally alter State boundaries and create new States. The Indian Constitution itself has been amended 105 times in 70 years compared with 27 times in over 250 years in the United States.

With nation-building as priority, the constitutional division of power and resources remains heavily skewed in favour of the Centre; along with Residual, Concurrent and Implied powers, it compromises on the elementary federal principle of equality among them, operationally reinforced by extra-constitutional accretion. While the judiciary is empowered to adjudicate on their conflicts, with higher judicial appointments (an estimated 41% lying vacant), promotion and transfers becoming a central prerogative, their operations are becoming increasingly controversial.

The story is not different for the all India services, including the State cadres. What is operationally most distorted is the role of Governors: appointed by the Centre, it is political patronage, transforming this constitutional authority of a federal link to one of a central agent in the States. Thus, the critical instruments of national governance have been either assigned or appropriated by the Centre, with the States left with politically controversial subjects such as law and order and land reforms. Thus, most of Indias federal conflicts are structural, reinforced by operational abuses.

Yet, there is no federal chamber to politically resolve conflicts. The Rajya Sabha indirectly represents the States whose legislators elect it, but continue even after the electors are outvoted or dismissed; with no residential qualification, this House is a major source of political and financial patronage for all political parties, at the cost of the people of the State they represent.

Possibly, this explains its continuity. Constituting roughly half the Lok Sabha, proportionately, it reinforces the representative deficit of Parliament, which, through the Westminster system of winner-take-all, continues to elect majority parties and governments with a minority of electoral votes. The second chamber is not empowered to neutralise the demographic weight of the populous States with larger representation in the popular chamber; it cannot veto its legislations, unlike the U.S. Senate. It can only delay, which explains the disruptions. Joint sessions to resolve their differences are as predicable and comical as the voice votes in the Houses. Indias bicameral legislature, without ensuring a Federal Chamber, lives up to the usual criticism: when the second chamber agrees with the first, it is superfluous, when it disagrees, it is pernicious.

Historically, party compositions decide when they agree or disagree. Whenever any party with a massive majority in any state finds itself marginalised in the central legislature, it disrupts proceedings, just as popular issues not reflected in legislative proceedings provoke undemocratic expressions and reciprocal repression. Such examples abound in Indias quasi- federal democracy till now.

Empirical and scholarly evidence suggest Wheares prefix about federalism arguably applies to other constitutional goals (largely operationally), while the federal flaws are structural, reinforcing conflicts and violence, endemic in the distorted democratic process. It is a threat to national security by incubating regional cultural challenges to national sovereignty, and reciprocal repression. We might learn from the mistakes of neighbouring Sri Lanka and Pakistan rather than be condemned to relive them. Indias national security deserves a functional democratic federal alternative to its dysfunctional quasi-federal structure, which is neither federal nor democratic but a constitutional basic structure.

Aswini K. Ray is a former Professor of Comparative Politics and International Relations, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

Read more:
Reflections on the 'quasi-federal' democracy - The Hindu

Why Has East Timor Built the Strongest Democracy in Southeast Asia? – Council on Foreign Relations

Part of a blog series on Southeast Asian and South Asian Democracy.

On the face of it, East Timor would not seem like the most natural place to have built a democracy ranked by Freedom House, in its 2021 edition of Freedom in the World, as Free. In fact, this ranking makes East Timor the only country in Southeast Asia, where democracy has been regressing for over a decade, to be ranked Free by Freedom House. (I serve as a consultant for some Freedom House reports, but not for the report on East Timor.)

More on:

Southeast Asia

Timor-Leste

Future of Democracy

A wide range of other data and anecdotes suggests how far East Timor has come toward democracy. It has built a solidly free state some two decades after Timor was leveled in the conflict that erupted, in 1999, after over 78 percent of Timorese voted to separate from Indonesia after the end of the Suharto dictatorship.

Asia Unbound

CFR fellows and other experts assess the latest issues emerging in Asia today.1-3 times weekly.

That 1999 conflict in Timor, led by ravaging militias backed by the Indonesian security forces, not only killed roughly 2,600 but also wrecked much of the infrastructure in tiny Timor, which already was one of the poorest places in Asia. Timor was ravaged again, in 2006, by clashes between its own soldiers and security forces. Timor did rebuild some of its infrastructure, and received significant amounts of foreign aid and a share of the revenues from the petroleum in the Timor Gap.

Still, it remains the poorest country in Asia, a far cry from the high rises of Bangkok or Singapore. Indeed, an article by Jonas Guterres, a former advisor to the Office of the Commissioner at the Anti-Corruption Commission of Timor-Leste, notes that: The 2017 Global Hunger Index categorized the countrys [East Timors] hunger levels as serious, although over the past decade the hunger level has been reduced from 46.9 percent to 34.3 percent. Levels of malnutrition and stunting remain worryingly high.

And Timor certainly still has massive economic problems. With its share of the oil from the Timor Gap, its biggest earner, eventually going to dwindle, and the small size of Timor and remote location deterring tourism even before COVID-19, it is still searching for more sustainable drivers of the economy. The vast majority of the population is under age thirty, which could be a boon for the work force but also could lead the country to have large numbers of unemployed young men, always a dangerous situation.

And yet it has taken several important initiatives to build a consolidated democracy. Timor has brought elections down to the community level as physical infrastructure has improved, and community level elections have increased popular participation in democracy. Overall, both the long independence struggle and more recent efforts by Timorese civil society and leaders have convinced many Timorese of the importance of democracy, and turnout for elections is extremely high. With such public interest, and increasingly improved electoral commissions, elections have been held in recent years with minimal or no violence, and minimal if any irregularities.

More on:

Southeast Asia

Timor-Leste

Future of Democracy

It also has worked hard to ensure that women play a major role in elections and governing. And its constitution and norms have strong protections for civil society and an independent media, a far cry from the recent crackdown on reporters in neighboring states like Myanmar, Thailand, the Philippines, and Cambodia, among other countries in the region. Shoestring but aggressive local media outlets put tough questions to politicians in Timor.

Indeed, Freedom House notes that East Timor has held competitive elections and has undergone multiple transfers of power something that cannot be said about many other Southeast Asian states these days. Freedom House also notes that East Timor boasts independent media, a vibrant civil society, and robust discussion among citizens about the government and other related issues.

At a time when Myanmar has been taken over by the army, Indonesia is sliding away from democracy, Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte seems to want to extend his grip on power, and Thailand is run by a military-installed regime, perhaps these Southeast Asian regional powers should look to tiny Timor for how to run a democracy.

This publication is part of the Diamonstein-Spielvogel Project on the Future of Democracy.

See original here:
Why Has East Timor Built the Strongest Democracy in Southeast Asia? - Council on Foreign Relations

Taiwan and the Fight for Democracy: A Force for Good in the Changing International Order – Foreign Affairs

The story of Taiwan is one of resilienceof a country upholding democratic, progressive values while facing a constant challenge to its existence. Our success is a testament to what a determined practitioner of democracy, characterized by good governance and transparency, can achieve.

Yet the story of Taiwan is not only about the maintenance of our own democratic way of life. It is also about the strength and sense of responsibility Taiwan brings to efforts to safeguard the stability of the region and the world. Through hard work and courage, the 23.5 million people of Taiwan have succeeded in making a place for themselves in the international community.

Emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic, authoritarian regimes are more convinced than ever that their model of governance is better adapted than democracy to the requirements of the twenty-first century. This has fueled a contest of ideologies, and Taiwan lies at the intersection of contending systems. Vibrantly democratic and Western, yet influenced by a Chinese civilization and shaped by Asian traditions, Taiwan, by virtue of both its very existence and its continued prosperity, represents at once an affront to the narrative and an impediment to the regional ambitions of the Chinese Communist Party.

Taiwans refusal to give up, its persistent embrace of democracy, and its commitment to act as a responsible stakeholder (even when its exclusion from international institutions has made that difficult) are now spurring the rest of the world to reassess its value as a liberal democracy on the frontlines of a new clash of ideologies. As countries increasingly recognize the threat that the Chinese Communist Party poses, they should understand the value of working with Taiwan. And they should remember that if Taiwan were to fall, the consequences would be catastrophic for regional peace and the democratic alliance system. It would signal that in todays global contest of values, authoritarianism has the upper hand over democracy.

The course of the Indo-Pacific, the worlds fastest-growing region, will in many ways shape the course of the twenty-first century. Its emergence offers myriad opportunities (in everything from trade and manufacturing to research and education) but also brings new tensions and systemic contradictions that, if not handled wisely, could have devastating effects on international security and the global economy. Chief among the drivers of these tensions is the rise of more assertive and self-assured authoritarianism, which is challenging the liberal democratic order that has defined international relations since the end of World War II.

Beijing has never abandoned its ambitions toward Taiwan. But after years of double-digit investment in the Chinese military, and expansionist behavior across the Taiwan Strait and in surrounding maritime areas, Beijing is replacing its commitment to a peaceful resolution with an increasingly aggressive posture. Since 2020, Peoples Liberation Army aircraft and vessels have markedly increased their activity in the Taiwan Strait, with almost daily intrusions into Taiwans southern air defense identification zone, as well as occasional crossings of the tacit median line between the island and the Chinese mainland (which runs along the middle of the strait, from the northeast near Japans outlying islands to the southwest near Hong Kong).

Despite these worrying developments, the people of Taiwan have made clear to the entire world that democracy is nonnegotiable. Amid almost daily intrusions by the Peoples Liberation Army, our position on cross-strait relations remains constant: Taiwan will not bend to pressure, but nor will it turn adventurist, even when it accumulates support from the international community. In other words, the maintenance of regional security will remain a significant part of Taiwans overall government policy. Yet we will also continue to express our openness to dialogue with Beijing, as the current administration has repeatedly done since 2016, as long as this dialogue proceeds in a spirit of equality and without political preconditions. And we are investing significant resources to deepen our understanding of the administration in Beijingwhich will reduce the risks of misinterpretation and misjudgment and facilitate more precise decision-making on our cross-strait policies. We look to maintain a clear-eyed understanding of the external environment, both threats and opportunities, in order to ensure that Taiwan is prepared to meet its challenges.

At the same time, Taiwan is fully committed to working with other regional actors to ensure stability. In March, for example, Taiwan and the United States signed a memorandum of understanding on the establishment of a coast guard working group. This working group will improve communication and information sharing between the U.S. and Taiwanese coast guards, while also facilitating greater collaboration on shared objectives, such as preserving maritime resources and reducing illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. Such an understanding should serve as a springboard for greater collaboration on nonmilitary matters with other partners in the Indo-Pacific.

Taiwan has also launched a series of initiatives to modernize and reorganize its military, in order to be better prepared for both present and future challenges. In addition to investments in traditional platforms such as combat aircraft, Taiwan has made hefty investments in asymmetric capabilities, including mobile land-based antiship cruise missiles. We will launch the All-Out Defense Mobilization Agency in 2022, a military reform intended to ensure that a well-trained and well-equipped military reserve force stands as a more reliable backup for the regular military forces. Such initiatives are meant to maximize Taiwans self-reliance and preparedness and to signal that we are willing to bear our share of the burden and dont take our security partners support for granted.

At a Taiwanese military exercise in Pingtung, Taiwan, May 2019

Taiwans efforts to contribute to regional security do not end there. We are fully committed to collaborating with our neighbors to prevent armed conflict in the East China and South China Seas, as well as in the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan lies along the first island chain, which runs from northern Japan to Borneo; should this line be broken by force, the consequences would disrupt international trade and destabilize the entire western Pacific. In other words, a failure to defend Taiwan would not only be catastrophic for the Taiwanese; it would overturn a security architecture that has allowed for peace and extraordinary economic development in the region for seven decades.

Taiwan does not seek military confrontation. It hopes for peaceful, stable, predictable, and mutually beneficial coexistence with its neighbors. But if its democracy and way of life are threatened, Taiwan will do whatever it takes to defend itself.

Taiwans history is filled with both hardship and accomplishments, and the authors of this history are the people of Taiwan. Over the past few decades, we have overcome adversity and international isolation to achieve one of modern political historys most successful democratic transitions. The key ingredients of this achievement have been patience, resourcefulness, pragmatism, and a stubborn refusal to give up. Understanding both the delicate balance of power in the region and the need for support, the Taiwanese know that practical collaboration is often better than being loud or adventurous and that a willingness to lend a hand is better than trying to provoke or impose a system on others.

While the people of Taiwan have not always achieved consensus, over time, a collective identity has emerged. Through our interactions with the rest of the world, we have absorbed values that we have made our own, merging them with local traditions to create a liberal, progressive order and a new sense of what it means to be Taiwanese.

At the heart of this identity is our embrace of democracy, reflecting a choice that the Taiwanese made and fought for after decades of authoritarian rule. Once the Taiwanese had made that choice, there was no looking back. Imperfect though it may be, democracy has become a nonnegotiable part of who we are. This determination gives Taiwan the resilience to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century and provides a firewall against forces, both internal and external, seeking to undermine its hard-won democratic institutions.

A fundamental part of this embrace of democracy is a firm belief that the future of Taiwan is to be decided by the Taiwanese through democratic means. Although Taiwanese in some ways differ in their sense of what exactly this future should look like, we are united in our commitment to democracy and the values and institutions that allow us to fight back against external efforts to erode our identity and alter the way of life we cherish. The great majority of us regard democracy as the best form of government for Taiwan and are willing to do what is necessary to defend it. Those beliefs are tested every day, but there is no doubt that the people would rise up should the very existence of Taiwan be under threat.

Civil society has always played a major role in Taiwan. During the period of authoritarian rule under the Kuomintang, the Dangwai movement pushed to lift martial law and democratize Taiwan; even after being instrumental in ending martial law, it continued to offer an active and effective check on government power. Today, the extent of Taiwanese civil societys role in governance is unmatched anywhere in the regiona reflection of the trust between elected officials and citizens, who as a result are able to influence policy both through and between elections.

Taiwans civil society has also proved integral to the islands international standing. Taiwans exclusion from the United Nations and most other international institutions could have led to isolation, but Taiwan instead tapped into the tremendous creativity and capacity of its people, allowing us to establish global connections by other meansthrough small businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and various semi-official groupings. Rather than being an impediment, the refusal of many countries to officially recognize Taiwan compelled us to think asymmetrically, combating efforts to negate Taiwans existence by deepening our engagement with the world through nontraditional channels.

In short, despite decades of isolation, the people of Taiwan have succeeded in making a place for themselves within the international communityand transforming Taiwan itself into an economic powerhouse and one of the most vibrant democracies in the Indo-Pacific.

Taiwans ability to survive and even thrive as a liberal democracy despite the extraordinary challenges to its existence has important implications for the prevailing rules of international relations. Our bid to play a more meaningful role in the international community is evolving in the context of changing regional politics, with more assertive challenges to the liberal international order, backed by the economic and political power to turn those ambitions into action. With increasing awareness of the potential impact of such authoritarian ambitions, more and more countries have been willing to reexamine their long-standing assumptions about, and self-imposed limitations on, engagement with Taiwan.

Through its evolution as an economic powerhouse and a participatory democracy, Taiwan seeks to beand in many ways already ispart of the solution to emerging challenges with ramifications on a planetary scale, from climate change and new diseases, to proliferation and terrorism, to human trafficking and threats to supply chains. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that the world is now so interconnected that the outbreak of a disease in one corner of the planet can, within a matter of months, reach pandemic proportions. In many cases, the speed with which new emergencies arise and spread is beyond the ability of states and existing international institutions to respond. To prepare for future emergencies, the international community must move toward inclusiveness rather than rigidly adhering to current structures.

Getting vaccinated against COVID-19 in Taipei, Taiwan, September 2021

Even as it experienced a flare-up in COVID-19 cases last spring, Taiwan has demonstrated to the world that democratic systems can respond effectively to a pandemic, harnessing the powers of artificial intelligence, big data, and surveillance networks while ensuring that the information gathered is used responsibly. The pandemic has also given Taiwan an opportunity to share its experience with the world and to provide much-needed medical assistance to struggling countries. This is so despite its long exclusion from global institutions such as the World Health Organization, which has left Taiwan little choice but to develop its own methods of cooperating and communicating with international partners. Being left out of the United Nations and other multilateral institutions has encouraged resilience and spurred novel approaches to dealing with challenges and crises of all kinds.

Despite being kept out in the cold, Taiwan has strived to adhere to international protocols, such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, amending its domestic laws and seeking its own formulas for meeting increasingly complex challenges. Taiwan is also working proactively with its partners on the development of its region. In 2016, we launched the New Southbound Policy, which facilitates regional prosperity through trade and investment partnerships, educational and people-to-people exchanges, and technological and medical cooperation with countries in South and Southeast Asia, as well as Australia and New Zealand. Taiwan is also making investments in these partners through its business community, simultaneously fostering secure supply chains and regional development.

Indeed, with its high-tech leadership and educated and globalized workforce, Taiwan is well positioned to help create secure global supply chains in sectors such as semiconductors, biotechnology, and renewable energyall areas where international cooperation is needed now more than ever. Our semiconductor industry is especially significant: a silicon shield that allows Taiwan to protect itself and others from aggressive attempts by authoritarian regimes to disrupt global supply chains. We are working to further strengthen our role in securing global supply chains with a new regional high-end production hub initiative, which will solidify our position in the global supply chain. Besides making computer chips, Taiwan is active in high-precision manufacturing, artificial intelligence, 5G applications, renewable energy, biotechnology, and more, helping create more diverse and global supply chains that can withstand disruption, human or otherwise.

Taiwan derives additional soft power from expertise and capabilities in a variety of other fields, including education, public health, medicine, and natural-disaster prevention. And these are fields in which our experts and institutions are taking on a growing regional role. Our universities, for example, are prepared to work with other universities in the region to develop Chinese-language training. Our medical facilities are sharing expertise in medical technology and management with partners around Asia. And we are ready to work with major countries to provide infrastructure investment in developing countries, leveraging efficiency while promoting good governance, transparency, and environmental protection. Similar efforts are being made through an agreement with the United States to enhance cooperation on infrastructure financing, investment, and market development in Latin America and Southeast Asia. In short, Taiwan can be a crucial force in the peaceful development and prosperity of our region and the world.

Sitting on the frontlines of the global contest between the liberal democratic order and the authoritarian alternative, Taiwan also has an important part to play in strengthening global democracy. In 2003, we established the regions first nongovernmental organization devoted to democracy assistance and advocacy, the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy. Following the models set by the United States National Endowment for Democracy and the United Kingdoms Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the TFD provides funding for other nongovernmental organizations, international and domestic, that advocate democratic development and human rights. It also works to promote public participation in governance through mechanisms such as participatory budgeting and to encourage youth engagement through initiatives such as the annual Asia Young Leaders for Democracy program. In 2019, the TFD organized its inaugural regional forum on religious freedom, and my government appointed its first ambassador-at-large for religious freedom.

Taiwans strong record on democracy, gender equality, and press and religious freedom has also made it a home for a growing number of global nongovernmental organizations, which have faced an increasingly difficult environment in Asia. Organizations including Reporters Without Borders, the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, the European Values Center for Security Policy, and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom have set up regional offices in Taiwan. From Taiwan, they are able to continue their important work in the region without the constant threats of surveillance, harassment, and interruptions by authorities. We have also made ourselves hospitable to international institutions interested in establishing a presence in the Indo-Pacific, helping turn Taiwan into a hub for advancing the interests of the democratic community.

Meanwhile, the Global Cooperation and Training Frameworka platform jointly administered by Taiwan, the United States, and other partners that allows us to share our expertise with countries around the worldhas fostered creative cooperation on issues such as law enforcement, public health, and good governance. One recent round of GCTF activity, for example, focused on media literacy and how democracies can combat disinformationan area in which Taiwan has an abundance of experience.

Over the past five years, more than 2,300 experts and officials from more than 87 countries have attended GCTF workshops in Taiwan, and the forum will continue to expandoffering a path to greater collaboration between Taiwan and countries around the world, including the United States. Indeed, Taiwan works closely with the United States on many issues, in the service of regional peace and stability. Our hope is to shoulder more responsibility by being a close political and economic partner of the United States and other like-minded countries.

The threat posed by authoritarian regimes has served as an important wake-up call for democracies, spurring them to emerge from their complacency. Although extraordinary challenges remain, democracies around the world are now working to safeguard their values and renew their ossified institutions. Alliances are being rekindled to serve the interests of the international community.

Taiwan may be small in terms of territory, but it has proved that it can have a large global presenceand that this presence matters to the world. It has persevered in the face of existential threats and made itself an indispensable actor in the Indo-Pacific. And through it all, the Taiwanese commitment to democracy has never been stronger: the people of Taiwan know that democracy is the lasting path and the only game in town.

Over the past two years, our handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, and our assistance to and collaboration with countries around the world, has offered one more example of the crucial role that Taiwan can play and of why Taiwan matters. Going forward, our high-tech industries, and especially our production of advanced semiconductors, will continue to fuel the global economy. And Taiwans ability to balance ties to various countries while defending its democratic way of life will continue to inspire others in the region.

We have never shied away from challenges. Although the world faces an arduous journey ahead, this presents Taiwan with opportunities not seen before. It should increasingly be regarded as part of the solution, particularly as democratic countries seek to find the right balance between the need to engage and trade with authoritarian countries and the need to defend the values and democratic ideals that define their societies. Long left out in the cold, Taiwan is ready to be a global force for good, with a role on the international stage that is commensurate with its abilities.

Loading...Please enable JavaScript for this site to function properly.

Read the original here:
Taiwan and the Fight for Democracy: A Force for Good in the Changing International Order - Foreign Affairs