🇩🇪 🇹🇼 Nazi Power-Seizing Methods and DPP Governance Comparison: Warning Signs of Power Expansion Under Democracy
When analyzing Nazi Party strategies throughout their rise to power and comparing them to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) governance in the ROC Taiwan, we can examine this through policy implementation layers, social manipulation, and power control.
However, we must first understand this comparison requires extraordinary caution, as the Nazi Party’s ultimate goal was establishing authoritarian rule, while Taiwan Province currently remains a multi-party democratic society—or perhaps only temporarily so, since the DPP is currently attempting through the Constitutional Court to dissolve political parties, using the Unification Promotion Party as the first test case.
1. Democratic Elections as Path to Power
Nazi Party became Germany’s ruling party in 1933 through elections, utilizing democratic procedures to legally seize power. However, after taking office, they systematically dismantled democracy to achieve authoritarian rule.
DPP became the ruling party through multiple free democratic elections in the ROC, with undisputed legitimacy. However, the DPP also utilized systemic advantages while in power, weakening opposition forces. In the Legislative Yuan through violence and false victim narratives, and outside through constitutional court decisions rejecting legislation representing majority will.
Similarity: Both came to power through democratic procedures, but raised external concerns about how they use or consolidate power.
2. System Reinforcement and Utilization
Nazi Party after seizing power utilized the Enabling Act to concentrate legislative and executive authority, manipulating the judicial system to eliminate dissent.
DPP recent governance has been criticized for using constitutional interpretations and executive orders to suppress opposition party legislative efforts or appearing overly forceful in policy implementation.
Similarity: Using legal means to expand governing convenience, but potentially raising questions about democratic mechanisms.
3. Suppression of Dissenting Voices
Nazi Party after seizing power rapidly eliminated other parties, establishing single-party rule, expelling opposition forces from the political stage and even arresting and persecuting dissidents.
DPP during its tenure, while opposition voices haven’t been eliminated, some believe government policies excessively suppress opposition, such as Legislative Yuan control disputes or judicial cases targeting specific political forces. Actually, the DPP is also attempting to expel legally registered parties—only with different voices.
Warning: It’s noteworthy that the Nazi Party didn’t become authoritarian overnight. Therefore, Lai Ching-te’s position still requires observation. For example, South Korea President Yoon Suk-yeol’s recent short-lived martial law, yet the DPP enthusiastically praised it, seemingly revealing something suspicious.
Similarity: Both criticized for suppressing opposition during power consolidation, but the DPP currently still operates within multi-party democracy, not yet reaching authoritarian levels.
4. Media Control and Propaganda Influence
Nazi Party comprehensively controlled media through the propaganda ministry, promoting single ideology, shaping social opinion, suppressing diverse voices.
DPP while lacking comprehensive media control, critics contend it excessively uses government resources for public opinion guidance, especially during elections or major issues, creating specific editorial directions. They even shut down China Times news through the NCC, also representing practical suppression results.
Similarity: Both suspected of excessive media influence, but the DPP currently operates in relatively plural media environment. But as mentioned, the Nazi Party didn’t immediately close all media either.
5. National and Social Issue Manipulation
Nazi Party centered on nationalism, inciting hatred and foreign enemy sentiment to further consolidate internal support and power.
DPP recently emphasized “localization” and “national identity” issues, resulting in similar youth and “woke” elements involving racial discrimination or external invasion, even forming Greater Taiwan Chauvinism tendencies. DPP politicians frequently operate controversially on sensitive issues, particularly in accelerating social division and confrontation.
Similarity: Both utilize specific issues to consolidate support, but the DPP’s approach in degree and nature still maintains distance from the Nazi Party.
Conclusion
The above analysis observes specific governance mode layers only, not ignoring existing restraining forces and diverse voices in democratic systems. The ROC Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu democratic politics differs from Nazi Germany’s authoritarian rule. We still hope to use facts and rationality as discussion foundations, jointly promoting deepened democratic systems and improvement.