The Democratization Process of Poland and Taiwan: Comparative Perspective
Summary
Key Takeaways
Table Of Contents
- Cover
- Title
- Copyright
- About the author
- About the book
- This eBook can be cited
- Table of Contents
- Foreword
- Introduction (Łukasz ZAMĘCKI & Li-Jiuan CHEN-RABICH)
- Part I: Poland
- Historical and identity-related perspectives on the democratisation process in Poland (Tomasz SŁOMKA)
- Modernization theory in explaining the dynamics of democratisation and dedemocratisation in Poland (Ryszard SZARFENBERG)
- Elites of power and opposition. Poland’s ‘drama of democratisation’ in four Acts (Daniel PRZASTEK & Paweł Marek MROWIŃSKI)
- The role of student movements in Poland’s process of democratisation (Rafał CHWEDORUK)
- International factors underpinning democratisation in Poland (Agnieszka BIEŃCZYK-MISSALA)
- Changes in Poland’s political system by way of democratisation (Jacek WOJNICKI)
- Democratisation in Poland in the 21 century – New or old challenges? (Adam SZYMAŃSKI)
- Part II: Taiwan
- Historical and identity perspective on democratisation process in Taiwan (Li-Jiuan CHEN-RABICH)
- Social and economic preconditions of democratisation process in Taiwan (Mateus LEE)
- The ruling elites and opposition in the process of democratisation in Taiwan (San-Yi YANG)
- Student movement and democratisation in Taiwan (Ming-sho HO)
- Geopolitical Challenges to the Democratisation Development in Taiwan (Kuan-Hsiung WANG)
- Changes in political system of Taiwan during the democratisation process (Chin-Mo CHENG)
- Challenges of the political transition of Taiwan (Wei-feng TZENG)
- Closing remarks (Łukasz ZAMĘCKI & Li-Jiuan CHEN-RABICH)
- About the Editors
Foreword
As the representative of Taiwan in Poland, I am very pleased to learn of the publication of “The Democratisation Process of Poland and Taiwan: Comparative Perspective.” I appreciate the joint effort of the editors and contributors of this book in exploring different aspects of an important issue – the process of democratisation. They have endeavored to compare premises underpinning democratisation and the actual process between Poland and Taiwan. I am impressed by their in-depth and insightful observations and analyses, and would like to commend their collective effort and congratulate them on the impressive outcome.
It is my firm belief that Taiwan and Poland are like-minded partners as both countries share the values of freedom, democracy and human rights and embarked on the democratisation process at approximately the same time. In fact, both Taiwan and Poland are proud of their continuing effort to push for democratisation and could serve as good examples of how to build democracy. This book covers a wide range of issues related to the democratisation process in both Poland and Taiwan. It should be of interest to not only readers who are interested in the developments of Poland and Taiwan, but also those who are interested in the process of democratisation in general.
This book is especially meaningful because it is the outcome of collaboration between researchers from both Taiwan and Poland. It is a good example of the fruitful cooperation between Taiwan and Poland and is conducive to enhancing mutual understanding between the peoples of the two countries, while sharing with other countries their unique experiences in the democratisation process.
This year (2022) marks the 30th anniversary of the establishment of the Taipei Representative Office in Poland. As we celebrate 30 years of the growing mutually beneficial relations between Taiwan and Poland, this book reminds us of the original intent of both countries to learn, grow and prosper together. I wish to take this opportunity to express my profound respect and appreciation to all those who have contributed to the development of the bilateral relationship between Poland and Taiwan in the past 30 years. I look forward to closer bilateral cooperation for mutual benefits and the common good in the next 30 years and beyond.
Amb. Bob L. J. CHEN
Representative and Head of Office
Taipei Representative Office in Poland
Łukasz ZAMĘCKI & Li-Jiuan CHEN-RABICH
Introduction
Poland and Taiwan: two parts of the world distant from each other, differing culturally and socially, and yet facing kind of similar challenges in the late 1980s and early 1990s – characterised by transition from an authoritarian political system to liberal democracy. In both cases, the processes of democratisation fall within what Samuel Huntington chose to call democratisation’s “third wave”.
This publication’s aim to compare premises underpinning democratisation – and the actual process – between the aforementioned two (N=2) political regimes. It might at first glance look like a flight of fancy on the part of the Editors to concentrate on only two political systems. In fact, though, as we shall seek to make clear, this idea may allow interesting conclusions to be reached as regards the above phenomenon, to the point where they may even serve as an incentive for yet-further research into governance systems. For, even as Poland and Taiwan have their differences, they still have in common the fact that their societies are of medium size (with 38M people in the former and 23.5M in the latter). And at the time of writing these are actually the world’s no. 21 and 22 economies (in terms of GDP at current USD prices). Both now have rather polarised political scenes, and both (though especially Taiwan) have Presidencies of reinforced powers that therefore depart somewhat from more-classical models of parliamentary/cabinet political systems.
Furthermore, it is possible to point to the existence of similar factors capable of shaping the course of systemic transformation: Taiwan and Poland both passed through earlier periods of occupation by different states, and both experienced dynamic increases in levels of literacy in the years before the outbreak of World War II. The political history of the two regions was conditioned to a significant degree by the shape and process via which society’s identity formed. While authoritarianism continued to hold sway (admittedly taking rather different courses in the two cases), both societies did go through numerous battles and struggles with the authorities, with the peak response in both cases being Martial Law (in fact for a substantially longer period in Taiwan than Poland).
Both polities succeeded in developing civil societies even in the circumstances of authoritarian rule; and systemic change proceeded even as superpower states were present in the neighbourhood and displayed hostility (as with the Poland–USSR/Russia and the Taiwan–PRC relationships). Furthermore, ←9 | 10→while non-democratic regimes were still in place, both societies obtained support from both their diasporas and those in charge in the USA (notably under Ronald Reagan’s Presidency). The democratisation process was then associated with the development of more liberal-minded wings within the camps of the authoritarian rulers; and the peak of systemic transformation was fortunately reached without blood being shed.
Naturally, such factors are not unique to the democratisation processes of Poland and Taiwan, even as detailed analysis of this particular comparison often reveals substantial differences. But in each case there is nothing so strong as to constrain the motivation to go on comparing the transformations ongoing in the two political systems in the 1980s and 1990s.
Data collected by the V-dem may indicate some similarities in the preconditions of the democratisation process and the subsequent course of the democratisation.
Source: https://v-dem.net/data_analysis/VariableGraph/
Source: https://v-dem.net/data_analysis/VariableGraph/
Source: https://v-dem.net/data_analysis/VariableGraph/
Source: https://v-dem.net/data_analysis/VariableGraph/
Source: https://v-dem.net/data_analysis/VariableGraph/
Rather weighty matters here are the differences in conditioning as democratisation commenced, though it is certainly the case that classical methods of comparison in the political sciences involving the method of difference and the method of agreement are entirely possible. The role of economic factors is obviously important, with Taiwan already displaying dynamic economic growth by ←10 | 11→←11 | 12→←12 | 13→the 1950s. At that time, Poland was receiving the dubious benefits of experimentation with central planning practised by its own regime, but definitely originating in Soviet circumstances. However, these are not differences large enough to preclude the application of modernisation theory in accounting for two processes of democratisation. Poland did experience a kind of economic collapse in the 1980s, while having experienced more sluggish economic growth than Taiwan in the years before that; but it still experienced a qualitative breakthrough in the 20th century where the development of education and infrastructure was concerned.
This book thus seeks to present the democratisation of Poland and Taiwan from the point of view of shared perspectives. Invoking the classical literature of transitology (cf. Berg-Schlosser 2012), it is possible to note several key theories that might account for changes and transformations in the direction of liberal democracy. These would relate to the roles of: socioeconomic factors; fragmentation in society; political culture; meso-structures (e.g. political groups, social movements); political institutions, historical and national-identity aspects; and international influences. In that regard, the configuration of analysis proposed for this book’s analysis of democratisation has entailed:
1. Historical and identity-related perspectives on the democratisation process – Poland (Tomasz Słomka) and Taiwan (Li-Jiuan Chen-Rabich)
2. Social and economic preconditioning of the democratisation process – Poland (Ryszard Szarfenberg) and Taiwan (Mateus Lee)
3. Elites of power and Opposition in the process of democratisation – Poland (Daniel Przastek and Paweł Mrowiński) and Taiwan (Yang San-Yi)
4. The role of student movements in political transition – Poland (Rafał Chwedoruk) and Taiwan (Ming-sho Ho)
5. The geopolitics of democratisation – Poland (Agnieszka Bieńczyk-Missala) and Taiwan (Dustin Kuan-Hsiung Wang)
6. Changes in the political system during the democratisation process – Poland (Jacek Wojnicki) and Taiwan (Chin-Mo Cheng)
7. Challenges of the political transition – Poland (Adam Szymański) and Taiwan (Wei-feng Tzeng)
Closing remarks then collect together conclusions arising out of the comparison between the two polities. Similarities and differences are indicated, also in regard to the different or similar roles different variables are seen to have played. In the face of all this, we actually count on the comparison being worthwhile enough to encourage yet-further research, for example accounting for divergent paths ←13 | 14→in the direction of consolidation that the two regimes displayed in the second decade of the 21st century.
Polish-Taiwanese comparisons have not been a regular phenomenon (though the article by Yu-Shan Wu entitled Comparing Taiwan and the CEE Trio: The Impact of Social and Institutional Factors, Taiwan Journal of Democracy, special issue, May 2013, may certainly be referred to). And first and foremost, we can suggest that a subject matter as broad and diverse as is to be found here cannot be accessed elsewhere. Needless to say there is far more work looking at the transformation in Poland as such (with works in English inter alia by Andrzej Antoszewski, Timothy Garton Ash, Grzegorz Ekiert, Tom Junes, Padraic Kenney, Jerzy Szacki, Charles Wankel and Włodzimierz Wesołowski); or else in Taiwain as such (with works in English i.a. by Cheng Tun-Jen, Chien-Kai Chen, Chao Linda and Ramon Myers, Chu Yun-han, John Franklin Copper, Dafydd Fell, Hung-Mao Tien, Fan Yun, J. Bruce Jacobs, Sunhyuk Kim, Teng-Hui Lee, Ian McAllister, Christian Schafferer, Shao-chuan Leng and Cheng-yi Lin, Shelley Rigger, Soong James, Su-Mei Ooi, Jung-Hsiang Tsai, Alan Wachman, Joseph Wong, Yu-Shan Wu, Wu Joseph Jaushieh, Nai-Teh Wu, Tsang S., Hung-mao T. Philip Paolino and James Meernik).
A plus-point of this study should be the insight offered into how precisely-defined factors and issues conditioned development in Taiwan on the one hand and Poland on the other. So it is with the chapter by Tomasz Słomka concerning historical and identity-related aspects of democratisation, which emphasises Polish democratic traditions and the way they were able to influence the building of a new regime. The history in question is not merely that between the Wars, as even-earlier democratic political thought in Poland also proved important. The author describes and sums up the experience, also perceiving the role of non-democratic Polish solutions offering a kind of negative role model for later modernisers. Słomka also notes how the experiences of Western democracies were taken on and taken up, as Poland developed its new systemic form.
Analogously, Li-Jiuan Chen-Rabich shows the reform process in Taiwan, as a result of which, Taiwan’s democratisation seems obvious. Chen-Rabich notes that identity changes are corelated with the democratisation process. The importance of the “228 incident” for Taiwan’s transition and identity or the role of particular reforms (land reform, education policy reform, etc.) conducted by the KMT for changes in the political landscape is underlined. Interestingly, Authoress present how the importance of Taiwan itself for KMT’s politics has been raising.
The task of Ryszard Szarfenberg and Mateus Lee was to analyze the role of socio-economic factors in the process of democratisation. Ryszard Szarfenberg ←14 | 15→presents not only possible socioeconomic factors of democratisation of Poland, but also recent de-democratisation. Basing on the theory of modernization, he indicates the links between modernization and democracy. Briefly characterize the role of economic, social, educational and cultural factors of modernization over the last 50 years. The economic crisis in Poland in the period of authoritarianism, uneven modernization, and significant phase nature of the process, will lead to more ambiguities conclusions when it comes to the role of socio-economic factors in the democratisation process. Mateus Lee also studies Taiwan’s annual data on democracy, education, national income, trade and the international democracy level and also finds Lipset’s theory to be not fully supportive in the case of Taiwan.
Important area of seeking factors of democratisation processes is the attitude and behaviour of political elites (incumbents and opposition). A key attribute of the chapter by Daniel Przastek and Paweł Mrowiński is then how they present the roles of political elites in the process leading up to Poland’s democratisation. This is seen through the prism of tensions between the Polish United Workers’ Party governing Poland (“the Party”) and the main Opposition force that was Solidarność – the “Solidarity” trade union. Alongside the communist elite, the authors point to the evolving existence of Opposition elites. Without development in line with growing experience, the latter would not have been able to play (or be effective in playing) the game that had to be played with the authoritarian system and its leaders.
Comparably, Yang San-Yi through the prism of people involved in the democratisation process, shows its incremental character – from Chiang Ching-kuo first democratic reforms, and Lee Teng-hui’s directly elected presidency, through Chen Shui-bian’s ethnic policy and democratic consolidation and Ma Ying-jeou new opening in relations with the PRC, to the current president Tsai Ing-wen. The Author underlines the role of the strategic interaction between the ruling party and the Opposition in the 1980s and 1990s in the process of democratisation.
Contentious politics and social movements are often filled by groups of youth (more ideological, with less to lose). Therefore, we have set the goal of identifying the role of student and youth movements in the democratisation process of Taiwan and Poland. For his part, Rafał Chwedoruk shows the role and significance of Opposition student organisations as part of the broader social movements appearing as Poland underwent its democratisation. By deploying theories of social movements, the author is able to conclude that students did not make any more fundamental contribution to the fall of the old system in Poland.
In contrast, Ming-sho Ho is able to prove that the student’s actions have had an important impact on Taiwan’s democratisation process. Although student’s ←15 | 16→activism was rather characterized by the short periods of intensive mobilisation followed by periods of quietude, youth movements were influential, to mention only the Diaoyutai Island Movement, the movements of the mid-1980s-1990s, and finally the Wild Strawberry Movement (2008) and the Sunflower Movement (2014).
When it comes to the role of external factors and geopolitics in the process of democratisation, Agnieszka Bieńczyk-Missala evokes theories regarding the importance to democratisation of external factors and agents. She thus stresses the role for Poland of change in the USSR (the Gorbachev-era transformations that signalled the possibility of change across the Eastern Bloc). And then there are the foreign actors “cheering on” Polish transformation, not least fora for cooperation in Europe. Attention is likewise drawn to emulative processes, i.e. the diffusion ensuring that changes taking place in one state go on to influence its neighbours.
Dustin Kuan-Hsiung Wang concentrates on international conditions of the democratisation process of Taiwan – geographic location, relationship with the USA or the issue of membership in the United Nations. These issues are important to “securing” Taiwan’s democratisation process.
Jacek Wojnicki and Chin-Mo Cheng goal was to present the most crucial challenges during the transition period. In a chapter entitled “Changes in Poland’s political system by way of democratisation”, Jacek Wojnicki offers a step-by-step presentation of the scope of change of Poland’s political system, beginning with the amendment of the Constitution of the Polish People’s Republic, going through the enactment of the so-called “Small Constitution” and finishing up with work on, and the ultimate adoption of, the new (1997) Constitution for the Republic of Poland.
Chin-Mo Cheng also presents electoral changes, party system alterations and constitutional adjustments. The Author illustrates the process of changes from the authoritarian ruling, the dissolution of one-party system, the amendment of Constitution, the changing party system, and the introduction of a semi-presidential system, to the consolidation of democracy and challenges to that process (also external factors influencing Taiwan’s politics).
Adam Szymański and Wei-feng Tzeng had the task of focusing on the challenges of the democratisation process. The first of the authors clearly focused on the current problem of weakening the quality of democracy in Poland. The reasons for this process are found in the process of political transition and the beginning of democratic consolidation. Among structural factors Szymański underline the establishment of the “tyranny of majority” and the process of excessive strengthening the executive power at the cost of the legislative and judiciary ←16 | 17→power. As functional factors the Author see the deficits of the democratic political culture in Poland. While Wei-feng Tzeng highlights challenges regarding cross-Strait antagonism and China’s influence (i.a. economic and possible military) what create also domestic challenges, such as the social and political polarization and occasional populism.
As a whole, this work will hopefully prove interesting to anyone studying democratisation processes, as well as to students of comparative politics and those dealing with systemic change in either Poland or Taiwan. Furthermore, as attention to the two polities’ democratisation has rather given way to interest or concern regarding a certain de-democratisation, it is to be hoped that Poland will abandon any democratic backsliding, while Taiwan will see ongoing democratic consolidation; with this book then serving as a useful and uplifting point of entry into considerations of similarities and differences when it comes to the paths taken by Poland and Taiwan.
Literature:
Berg-Schlosser, Dirk. 2012. “The “State of the Art” in Empirical Democratic Theory.” In: Mixed Methods in Comparative Politics. Research Methods Series. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
←17 | 18→Details
- Pages
- 374
- Publication Year
- 2023
- ISBN (PDF)
- 9783631895627
- ISBN (ePUB)
- 9783631895634
- ISBN (Hardcover)
- 9783631892855
- DOI
- 10.3726/b20757
- Language
- English
- Publication date
- 2023 (March)
- Published
- Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien, 2023. 374 pp., 15 fig. b/w, 6 tables.
