Have you read? Fukuyama: Taiwan doesn’t take its self-defense seriously enough

Q. Why did you say America was facing a “democratic recession”?

Diamond: The reversal began in 2006. But for about ten years, it was still a very incremental phenomenon. A number of democracies in the world had started receding levels of freedom. 

There are four categories of regimes: liberal democracies, electoral democracies, competitive authoritarian regimes and very authoritarian regimes. 

We're experiencing downward movement with some regimes in those categories moving in an authoritarian direction; very few moving in a liberalizing or democratic direction. 

Until the last few years, with the growing momentum and aggressiveness of Russian and Chinese power, we see an increasing audacity and belligerence against human rights of authoritarian regimes. 

In the United States, the term “democratic recession” is inadequate. We may need another term to capture the depth of the challenge now.

Q. But some people argue that polarization is a very common phenomenon in American history. 

D: In the past we had a real civil war with hundreds of thousands of casualties. We don't want to head there again. The current level of polarization is not worse than at the peak of the Vietnam War. 

The danger now arises from the breakdown of consensus on the rules of the democratic game, challenging basic presumptions and tenants of our democracy. Because if you don't trust the outcome of an election, then all the other assumptions of democracy break down.

Q: Some US observers in Taiwan are concerned that the domestic problems, including democratic recession and polarization, might distract US from its international ambitions, especially when China's sharp power is so threatening. How worried are you?

D: Not yet, not severely. There is still considerable bipartisan consensus, that the People’s Republic of China under Xi Jinping represents a serious if not existential threat to regional peace and stability, and that there are crucial shared interests of the US and the other democracies in having a free and open Indo-pacific. 

There is consensus that it’s crucially important for the US to have the capacity to deter PRC aggression, and ensure that the people of Taiwan will not have a resolution of the conflict across the Taiwan Strait imposed upon them, that any longer-term resolution would have to be a consensual one across the strait. 

But the situation is becoming more difficult. 

I think in the coming decade, Taiwan will face an existential threat. A growing seriousness and imminent danger to its survival as a democracy, and to its ability to determine its own fate.

Its margin for error is shrinking by the day, so is for adventurism, for experimentation and for nibbling away at the status quo. So, my first appeal would be to avoid any provocation, any pretext that would enable Xi Jinping or other leaders of the People’s Republic of China to claim that Taiwan has crossed the line, that it's drifting toward independence. 

The implication of this is be careful. Be very, very, very, very careful. People should get up in the morning and say to themselves, try to preserve the status quo. 

The more that the government, the political parties and the society in Taiwan adhere to a philosophy of not trying to alter the status quo, the less at risk they will be, that's my first point.

The second point is the flip side of that, that adhering to the status quo also means being vigilant about your democracy. Remain ambiguous about name and status and so on. Just be confident, strong and effective in your democracy. This is how you preserve support among other democracies of the world. 

And the third point is with every passing month, Taiwan needs to be ready for military risks of PRC assault, cyber blockade, missile attacks or outright amphibious invasion. 

While most people don't think that is imminent as a danger, nobody knows what Xi Jinping's time table is. 

And at the same time, prepare. 

Taiwan is not adequately prepared to defend itself. It needs more of an Israeli type of approach to its defense. Everyone is involved. Everyone is trained. They have the capacity to inflict heavy and damaging losses on anyone who would attack them. 

A growing number of my colleagues in the United States thing Taiwan must move much more expeditiously to defense strategy of emphasizing asymmetric warfare. My sense is that Taiwan is moving in this direction, but not nearly fast enough. I'll just keep saying over and over: the margin for error is small, and the threat is absolutely existential. 

Q: Taiwan is also facing the problem of political polarization. How can the two sides in a polarized society reconcile with each other? 

D: Maybe “reconciliation” is the wrong word. It's always helpful if competing rivals can identify and re-embrace some rules of the democratic game. 

It would be good and helpful for democracy in Taiwan if the two parties would each nominate pragmatic candidates who might disagree strongly with one another but would not question one another's patriotism and would keep the rhetorical bounds of conflict constrained. 

The next national election campaign will be a stress test for Taiwan democracy, in the context of escalating PRC efforts to intervene in Taiwan's democracy and disrupt it. We know these are tactics that authoritarian regimes use. 

It would be good if contenders within the two parties would all be sensitive to these vulnerabilities and dangers, and commit to not doing anything that would give the belligerent power across the strait room to exploit Taiwan’s democratic tensions. 

Q: What lessons can Taiwan learn from the democratic recession in the US? 

D: The most important one is that democratic failures are never predetermined. Democracy is saved and restabilized or destroyed by the actions of political elites, and that includes not only politicians, but other influential people in civil society, the media, intellectuals and so on.

When the institutions fall into decay, that's when the actions, rhetoric and tactics of politicians can either sustain and rejuvenate democracy or bury it.

The first lesson for anyone who has a role in the democratic system, is that if you play with fire, you may get burned. Your first obligation in a democratic system is to defend it, above any other partisan of group interest.

The second lesson is that, in times of stress, it's important to look at the institutions of democracy and see how well they are fitted to the country In the era.

I think the American electoral system of plurality election in single member districts, combined with low turnout party primary elections, is just the absolute worst electoral system we could have for trying to attenuate political polarization.

Because it is the party faithful the turn out disproportionately to vote in party primaries, they tend to be more militant and demand more extreme positions from their candidates.

The third lesson is that democracy has enemies at home and abroad. Even though they may not be in collaboration with one another, they serve one another's interests.

We know internationally who the enemies of democracy are, at least the most important ones: Russia, China, and other authoritarian regimes. Increasingly, they are trying to intervene in the internal affairs of democratic political systems to undermine them. 

We have to be vigilant. We have to expose that. We have to counter that. We have to disempower that. 

But we also have to be alert to the tactics and rhetoric of people from within this system and are behaving in a way that would seek to undermine it. 

You have to isolate, morally stigmatize and legally punish undemocratic illegal behavior when it happens. That's mainly a lesson for the United States to learn.

---

About Larry Diamond: 

Larry Diamond is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) at Stanford University. He also chairs the Hoover Institution Project on Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region and is the principal investigator of the Global Digital Policy Incubator, part of Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center.

His research focuses on democratic trends and conditions around the world and on policies and reforms to defend and advance democracy. His latest book, Ill Winds: Saving Democracy from Russian Rage, Chinese Ambition, and American Complacency, analyzes the challenges confronting liberal democracy in the United States and around the world at this potential “hinge in history,” and offers an agenda for strengthening and defending democracy at home and abroad.

---

Have you read?

♦ Fukuyama: Taiwan doesn’t take its self-defense seriously enough
♦ Why the Chinese military has increased activity near Taiwan
♦ What does the Biden-Xi meeting portend for Taiwan

Uploaded by Penny Chiang