2024 Taiwan President Election : Victory of identity politics and populism

On the evening of January 13, the 2024 Taiwan regional leadership voting results were announced. Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Lai Ching-te/Shiao Bi-khim secured victory with approximately 40% of the votes, surpassing Kuomintang's (KMT) candidate Hou Yu-ih/Jaw Shaw-kong and Taiwan People Party's (TPP) Ko Wen-je/Cynthia Wu, becoming the new president of the "Republic of China."

Lai Ching-te, the victorious candidate, stated, "Between democracy and authoritarianism, we (the Taiwanese people) chose to stand on the side of democracy." Throughout the campaign, Lai Ching-te and the DPP consistently emphasized the admiration and defense of "freedom and democratic values." Chinese political opposition and overseas supporters widely view Lai's victory as a triumph of democracy, believing that his election will defend freedom in Taiwan and the entire Asia-Pacific region.

However, in the author's opinion, this election is more of a victory for "Taiwanese" identity politics and populist xenophobia fueled by a surge in identity awareness.

Firstly, whether Lai Ching-te, Hou Yu-ih, or Ko Wen-je, none of them or their respective camps advocated for authoritarianism. On the contrary, they all explicitly supported, participated in, and defended democratic politics. The political competition within Taiwan is a clash of different democratic factions rather than a confrontation between democracy and non-democracy.

Certainly, Lai Ching-te's supporters claim to be "fighting against authoritarianism" by citing mainland China as their reason. However, the long-standing influence from the mainland aims to promote anti-Taiwan independence and favorably inclined forces towards the mainland, without altering Taiwan's democratic system.

The author does not deny that there are concerns among Taiwanese and external forces about the expansion of mainland influence, potentially harming Taiwan's freedom and democracy. This concern has contributed to the Democratic Progressive Party's success from Tsai Ing-wen to Lai Ching-te, with three consecutive terms in office. However, the author does not believe this is the decisive factor for the DPP's victory.

The real decisive factor is the success of the Democratic Progressive Party's populist and exclusionary mobilization based on Taiwan nativism, "Taiwanese" identity awareness, and opposition to "Greater China" ideology.

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), since its establishment, has consistently portrayed itself as a party representing the interests of the Taiwanese people, with the core demands of Taiwan independence and "Taiwan first." Although, at times, they adopt a low-profile stance on the issue of Taiwan independence for practical considerations, they persistently seek and defend "substantive Taiwan independence." The public support for their Taiwan independence stance is rooted in the identity and rejection of the "Republic of China" (ROC) / "Chinese nation" based on "Taiwanese" / "Taiwanese ethnic" identity.

The DPP and its supporters achieve internal cohesion, political mobilization, confrontation with the Kuomintang (KMT), and the formulation of corresponding domestic and foreign policy positions through their identity alignment with "Taiwanese" and rejection of "Greater China" ideology.

As is well-known, Taiwan is not only geographically separated from mainland China by a wide strait but has historically been under different political regimes. The identity and emotional connections of many Taiwanese people differ significantly from mainland Chinese. Before the lifting of martial law in 1987, the Nationalist Party (KMT) regime suppressed local and independence sentiments in Taiwan through coercive means, leading to the divergence and opposition between "mainlanders (those who moved to Taiwan after 1945)" and "native-born Taiwanese."

This division became the basis for the rise of the DPP and its opposition to the KMT. From the 1990s to the present, the DPP has prominently waved the banner of "Taiwanese ethnic" / Taiwan nativism, criticizing the KMT for its leaning towards Greater China ideology, successfully gaining the majority support among "native-born Taiwanese" who moved to Taiwan before 1945. Particularly in the traditionally KMT-neglected southern Taiwan, dominated by "native-born Taiwanese" and less emphasized before the lifting of martial law, it has become a stronghold for the DPP.

Compared to the vague notions of freedom and democracy, as well as the discernment of specific policies among various political parties, voter alignment based on "identity politics" is easier and more resolute. The term "identity politics" is effective because it simplifies complex issues into conflicts among people of different identities, aligning with the inherent nature of people to support those similar to themselves. Homogeneous groups indeed share more common language, values, and interests. Differences in physical appearance, religious beliefs, and cultural customs often lead to natural barriers and conflicts.

Discrimination and conflict-induced hatred further reinforce the identity and solidarity of the same group, intensifying stronger hostility and rejection towards others. In this vicious cycle, most people find it challenging to break free, instead becoming deeply entangled and further involved. This provides parties inciting identity opposition with more opportunities and resources.

For the majority of the population, due to personal limitations, lack of interest, ability, or patience to understand specific governance matters, engaging in "identity politics" – positioning oneself based on identity, beliefs, and stance – is more easily understandable and achievable. However, in this approach, the importance of right and wrong becomes less significant, with stance prevailing over everything.

Moreover, many who were previously uninterested in politics have "awakened" under the influence of "identity politics," understanding their identity and "values," feeling a sense of responsibility and pride as a representative of a certain identity, and actively participating in political activities, voting for individuals and parties that "represent themselves."

Such "identity politics" often carries a strong populist tone. Advocates deliberately ignore objective realities, reject rational discussions, and, instead, often incite emotions among the public, leading to irrational voting.

In recent years, "identity politics" has gained popularity worldwide, evident in events like the 2016 U.S. election, Brexit in the UK, and the rise of Viktor Orbán's regime in Hungary.

Taiwan is no exception to this trend. The division between "native-born Taiwanese" and "mainlanders," debates on "independence" and "unification," choices between "Greater China ideology" and "Taiwanese ethnic" identity, as well as differences on issues like same-sex marriage and LGBT rights, cross-strait relations, and foreign policy, have caused social fragmentation in Taiwan. The long-standing "Blue-Green rivalry" in Taiwanese politics is a typical manifestation.

The recent strengthening of the DPP is a natural consequence of the increasing proportion of the population identifying as "Taiwanese," deterioration of cross-strait relations due to changes in mainland politics, and the rising influence of left-wing populism on the island. Under these circumstances, regardless of the specific policies proposed by the KMT and the Taiwan People Party (TPP), the DPP's "stronghold" remains unswayed.

Instead, by inciting populism, exploiting Taiwanese resistance to mainland propaganda about "unification," weariness towards the KMT's conservative tendencies, exaggerating the threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party to Taiwan, and linking Taiwan nativism to "anti-CCP" and "defending democracy," the DPP continues to garner more support.

In this recent Taiwan election, liberal mainland Chinese journalists interviewed several Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) supporters to understand their views on cross-strait relations. These "deep-green" voters passionately expressed sentiments like "Chinese people and the Chinese Communist Party cannot be separated," "Whether China is democratic or not is China's own business," "I only care about Taiwan's domestic affairs," and "I don't care about the affairs of other countries (mainland China)." These responses vividly illustrate a portion of Taiwanese people's populist and exclusionary mindset. Personally, both online and offline, I have encountered individuals vehemently denying being "Chinese," emphasizing their "Taiwanese" identity, and eager to "cut ties" with the mainland. It is these voters who, while passionately opposing mainland China, also fervently support the DPP's stance of "resisting China to protect Taiwan," contributing to Lai Ching-te's victory.

Faced with the wave of "identity politics" and populism, the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Taiwan People Party (TPP) also participated and responded. Ko Wen-je, relying on personal charisma, idolizing himself, and advocating to transcend the traditional blue-green political divide, garnered considerable support. Hou Yu-ih and Jaw Shaw-kong made efforts to create a down-to-earth, pro-people image and mobilized the KMT's "ironclad base" with an anti-Taiwan independence stance. However, the KMT and PFP clearly fell short compared to the DPP's adept manipulation of populism, coupled with unfavorable domestic and international circumstances, leading to their ultimate defeat.

Therefore, in this Taiwan election, the real determinant of victory was not who cares more about freedom and democracy but which specific identity group each party represents, who can adeptly use "identity politics" to mobilize the masses, stir populism, and exploit the emotional anxiety of Taiwanese people amid the tense Asia-Pacific situation. The DPP's claims of a "victory for freedom and democracy" and "defending universal values" are merely a beautiful facade masking the ferocious tide of populist exclusion.

This type of political competition and elections based on identity and populism, while having their inherent inevitability and value, fundamentally represent an unhealthy political atmosphere. Under the global influence of identity politics and populism, Taiwan is finding it challenging to remain unaffected. However, individuals with insight, especially political elites in Taiwan, should not allow, and even intentionally misuse and embellish, this trend. Instead, they should assume greater responsibility and consider long-term benefits and drawbacks.

The escalating tension and zero-sum game between different groups and political polarization do not contribute to lasting peace in the Taiwan Strait. Instead, they bring various uncertainties and dangers. Taiwan's unhealthy political body cannot truly recover merely by cosmetic embellishments using the "freedom and democracy" label; on the contrary, it conceals deep-rooted issues.

As for achieving political health in Taiwan and peace in the Taiwan Strait, this ever-relevant topic is challenging for me to fully address personally. It requires the collective efforts of individuals from all sides to make meaningful progress.

（Cover image: Sing Tao Daily)