Taiwan's model of women leaders

Asia’s next step in its progress toward democracy will be a presidential election in Taiwan in which one of two women candidates will be elected in her own right.

AP Photo
Backed by the ruling Nationalist Party members July 19, Hung Hsiu-chu, a former teacher and current deputy legislative speaker, waves as she is nominated as the party's candidate in the January presidential election. The top two political parties in Taiwan have each nominated a woman for president in 2016, a historic first signaling acceptance of female leadership and kicking off a campaign highlighted so far by clashing views on ties with political rival China. Hung supportive of friendly relations with China will run against Tsai Ing-wen, the opposition Democratic Progressive Party chairwoman and an advocate of more cautious relations with Beijing.

Except in Australia and New Zealand, Asia has never had a female head of government who won office without the legacy of a famous husband, father, or brother. It certainly has had models of women leaders, such as Indira Gandhi in India or Corazon Aquino in the Philippines. Like them, two current women leaders, Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh and Park Geun-hye of South Korea, rose to power based in large part on the famous name or political connections of a late male relative. 

All this may change in January when the island nation of Taiwan is almost certain to elect a woman president in her own right, not on her birthright. On Sunday, the ruling party Kuomintang, or Nationalists, selected Hung Hsiu-chu as its presidential nominee. She will run against Tsai Ing-wen, leader of the Democratic Progressive Party. Both women have been bootstrap politicians within the two major parties. They also hold advanced degrees from Western universities.

Why would this progress for women matter? After all, Taiwan is often neglected on the world stage, isolated diplomatically by a China that sees the island as a renegade province, an unfinished remnant of its pre-1949 civil war. Taiwanese politics are often viewed in the context of China’s interests, such as whether a new president of Taiwan will formally declare independence from the mainland (and thus acknowledge a de facto independence). That question is indeed a main issue in Taiwan’s elections.

In Asia, however, models of democracy still resonate in a region that contains half of humanity. This has been especially true since the 1986 people’s power revolution in the Philippines. Taiwan began its transition to democracy in 1987, followed by South Korea, Indonesia, and to a degree, Myanmar (or Burma).  In particular, Taiwan has shown that a country with a strong Confucian culture is compatible with plural politics, a fact not well received in China. In the ruling Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party, only two of 25 members are women.

Electing a woman president in Taiwan will be the next chapter in Asia’s steady if bumpy progress toward democracy. Its two presidential candidates have said it best: 

“I hope this battle between two women will bring forth a whole new understanding and set an example of true democracy,” Ms. Hung said.

“In general terms, there is a preference for women candidates these days,” Ms. Tsai said. “[A]mong the younger generation, I think they are generally excited about the idea of having a woman leader. They think it is rather trendy.”

Taiwan took a big turn toward inclusive politics last year with a massive youth protest, known as the Sunflower Movement, triggered by a proposed trade pact with the mainland. At the same time, China has become more authoritarian, even arresting five core members of a feminist movement for peaceful protests against sexual harassment.

Despite its isolation, Taiwan’s democratic progress has given it more “soft power” than China’s expensive campaign to improve its tarnished image. Its people have absorbed the principles of individual rights and equality. Electing a woman as a natural leader based on her own qualities will set an example that will be hard to ignore.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.