|
As the discussion of human rights heat up with the ongoing globalization process, Taiwanese people are desperately looking for ways to make their life better; not only in terms of economic survival in the globalized market, but also in terms of expanding the living space for human right in its society. The positive side is, some Taiwanese people are starting to realize and recognize the need for improving human right condition in Taiwan. Advocating the need for improving human right does not necessarily suggest that Taiwan has an ugly record for violating human right; as one of the front runners among developing countries, the improvement of Taiwanese human right condition has already move beyond problems such as genocide, or lack of freedom of speech. If freedom of speech is taken as an example in this discussion; it is not the lack of such freedom that people should worry about, but the quality of public consensus that should attract Taiwanese government and civil society’s attention. However, the true problem with Taiwanese human right condition is perhaps more deep rooted than it seems to be. Perhaps it is more related to the conflict that exists between the nature of western style democracy and Taiwanese social culture. Perhaps, the real key for the improvement of current Taiwanese human right condition is the strength of its democracy and the degree of maturity of its civil society.
If a standard measure of human right is to be established, then a crucial characteristic this measure should posses is universality. However, there are numbers of Taiwanese traditional value that is not exactly correspondent to the current status quo human right standard that is mainly established by the western developed world. To put it more precisely, the understanding of human right between the eastern world and the western world are contrasted, due to their cultural differences, and Taiwan is not an exception.
It would not be rational to argue that the Taiwanese values that are not correspondent to western human right standard are simply inhumane, but Taiwanese civil society should seriously consider accepting and adjusting its value according to the western standard. Being purely politically realistic, adjustment and modification of Taiwanese human right standard according to the western standard would be most beneficial to the Taiwanese civil society. Human right record nowadays is often being used as one offensive instrument in the theater of international relations. Therefore, if Taiwanese standard can be adjusted to the international standard, then the likelihood of its human right flaws being accused by other sectors in international relation arena for political reason will be greatly reduced.
In a less cynical perspective, there are good reasons for respecting the not yet universal, but dominating main stream human right standard established by the western world. Globalization does not only bring unification to international economic activities, it is also a process of unifying ideologies, and believes, or in this case, the standard of human right. Human right will be a fixed concept with its own specific definition for the next generation to come, therefore, it would be logical to say that Taiwanese should adjust its human right believes for the next generation through education and further development of the civil society, for the fact that, inevitably, the uniformity of the concept of human right will eventually coin human right as an vital part of the future international social contract; and since Taiwanese people will become not only Taiwanese, but also world citizen, the practice and comprehension of human right will be crucial for the next generation.
This project of adjusting the already existing human right standard will be difficult to achieve without achieving two preconditions, the first one is strengthen Taiwanese democracy, and the second precondition would be the further growth of Taiwanese civil society. For the reason that, adjustment of social concepts such as human right requires legitimate political legal process and also matured rationality. Stronger democracy can satisfy the need for the legitimate political legal process, and mature civil society can serve as a monitor for the rationality during the process of such adjustment.
One of the most crucial elements for building a stronger and healthier Taiwanese democracy is citizen’s participation; the legitimacy of this project of adjusting Taiwanese human right concept depends on the degree of citizen’s participation. Democracy is the combination of two Greek words, Demo and Krato. Demo means people, and Krato means force, thus, the combination of these two definitions reveals the essence of democracy, which is people’s rule; this is one common truth that is known to citizens of the developed world, what citizens in developed world also acknowledged is the importance of participation in a democratic system. The problem of participation in political process is one problem that Taiwanese society faces, and this problem is one great obstacle for adjusting Taiwanese human right concept. Taiwan does have a relatively high voting rate in important elections, but election is only part of the whole picture in exercising active citizenship.
Taiwanese people’s enthusiasm in participation in political issues is contrasted to what Alexis de Tocqueville observed in America, where people see politics as one of their most important business. Yet, Taiwanese people do show up and vote in important elections, this is a problematic situation, because if people do not monitor the political practice of a government and its bureaucratic apparatus closely for a period, then how would they be able to make rational decisions in elections without being manipulated by politicians.
One of the reasons for Taiwanese people’s lack of enthusiasm in participating in every single political process has some correlation to Taiwanese social culture. In general, Taiwanese culture can be described as more collective rather than individualistic; in other words, individuals are often reluctant to express its criticism towards the status quo if this individual cannot find enough conformity in the existing social culture. In Taiwan, people are taught to not be different since their youth; any deviance from mainstream belief are often considered in a negative way, and sometimes, people will suffer consequences from their sociological social control agency, such as school, or family. If Kantian idea of enlightenment is the key for reaching perpetual peace, then Hegelian dialectic would be the key to stimulate social change that make a society more likely to survive in different historical era. However, if Taiwanese conservative social culture is put into consideration, then the adjustment of human right concept would be rather difficult; for the reason that people are often reluctant to stand out and say no to political culture, or social situation that they are not satisfied with. If there is no antithesis to challenge the decaying status quo, then there will be no improvement for Taiwanese democracy. Taiwan needs more Hegelian disciples and little less Confucius students if it truly hopes to improve its democracy in order to successfully adjust their human right standard.
In classical political conservative perspective, people should leave the political issues to their middle class representative, and focus more on their daily life; but in the case of Taiwanese civil society, during a time when swift change is needed, people might no longer have the luxury of laying back and forget about direct democracy. Civil society should come into its proper place as the monitor for adjusting Taiwanese human right practice. As mentioned earlier, Taiwanese people are generally apathetic towards social issues, but how can a people rule without act. In Taiwan, the education and social culture does not emphasize enough on having the next generation know about the essence of democracy, also fail to encourage the next generation to properly exercise the social-political power they have in hand; and perhaps, many Taiwanese citizens do not even fully have a clear recognition and understanding of what kind of power they can exercise as citizens. Education is one effective factor in building and modifying social culture, thus education can also affect people who are being benefited from the status quo social condition. Therefore, civil society’s role comes into the picture as one last defensive line for social justice and Taiwan’s future prosperity in the international theater. Yet, civil society will not have power if individual citizen does not bestow their support into the civil society; therefore Taiwanese people should have better understanding of its own individual social political responsibility in the process of adjustments.
Taiwanese education should also include more social-political related curricula to their basic nine year educations, for it is one effective way to improve Taiwanese civil society’s rationality. The maturity of a civil society is not defined as only participation or only rational concepts, but the combination of the two. Taiwanese education should properly equip the citizen-to-be with fertile knowledge of politics and society, so when they do become legal citizen one day, they will be able to form a rational civil society that monitor the government and its apparatus. They will also be able to commence the frequent and rational communication between the representative and their constituencies; they will know when to make demand, and when to make change.
Full comprehension and proper practice of internationally recognized human right standard would be crucial for Taiwanese to live as world citizens in a globalized world. There are still some way to go for Taiwanese people, and it has to start with the modification of Taiwanese social political culture. The two important tasks, namely strengthen Taiwanese democracy and further develop its civil society will be the first step. These two tasks depend on not government or political representatives, but individual Taiwanese people; it is time for the people to be individually responsible for their living space, and being individually responsible does mean that people should participate in social political practices with rationality, for an social-politically active group of people without rationality is not more than merely a mass, and an group of rational people without action is incapable of making constructive changes to the current situation.
|
