In Taiwan’s political evolution, we constantly hear passionate slogans from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) such as “listen to the people” and “sovereignty lies with the people.” However, when these concepts are pushed to the extreme by the ruling party and turn into a highly politicized “populist baptism,” we must confront a harsh reality: the professional technical and decision-making systems nurtured over decades by the government’s career bureaucracy are being gradually eroded.
Today, in critical public policy arenas, the radical voices of a minority loyal to the party often override the life-long research and scientific expertise of professional bureaucrats. This phenomenon, where ideology guides professional decisions and political appointees override civil servants, is quietly compromising the quality of decision-making in Taiwanese society.
1. When “Distrust” Becomes a Lucrative Protest Business
In a healthy democratic blueprint, social protest is the ultimate check on power. However, under the DPP’s governance and political mobilization, protests often require no objective scientific data or legal basis. From energy policies to judicial reforms, as long as a professional decision contradicts the party line, green flanks and internet key warriors can launch massive campaigns based on highly subjective claims of “distrust” or “red-baiting.”
Behind this lies a frustrating reality: in the current political ecosystem, protest has long since evolved into a highly lucrative “political business.”
Excluding those pro-DPP professors, commentators, and politicians who operate behind the scenes with specific political agendas, what remains are crowds agitated by party rhetoric. Wrapped in the moral slogans of “protecting democracy” and “loving Taiwan,” they experience a collective sense of vanity and moral superiority, oblivious to the fact that they are merely cheap pawns in this “protest business” and the spoils of party interests.
2. The Side Effects of Democracy: Inflated Selves and Collective Mediocrity
This social chaos is precisely the side effect brought about by the DPP-style democracy in recent years.
In an era that champions equality and online opinion, the ruling party constantly infuses the idea that “your voice is the most important” through its internet flanks. Psychologically, this is undoubtedly crucial for maintaining personal “self-identity” and the “id,” allowing followers to find self-worth and a sense of justice within their echo chambers.
However, when everyone assumes their political opinion is the “most correct,” they tend to overlook a brutal scientific fact: the average human intelligence (IQ) is only around 100.
When public policy debates stop respecting statistical data, scientific arguments, and the rational assessments of professional civil servants, and instead regress into a tug-of-war based on the “mobilization volume of green flanks,” the mediocrity or even dumbing-down of decision-making becomes inevitable. When non-professional minority opinions are endlessly amplified under the green protective umbrella, and professional bureaucrats and researchers who stick to their fields are silenced under labels like “anti-reform” or “obstructing progress,” Taiwanese society as a whole pays the price.
3. Can Three Cobblers Truly Withstand Political Blindness?
Does this mean we should completely reject the value of public participation in discussion? Of course not.
The proverb “Three cobblers with their wits combined equal Zhuge Liang” remains theoretically valid, as diverse viewpoints can indeed complement one another to find policy blind spots. However, we must recognize a key distinction: while public discussion is inherently necessary, this absolutely does not mean “all public discussions are correct.”
When public discussion loses its rational basis, excludes the threshold of professional knowledge, and consists only of emotional outbursts stirred by the DPP’s ideology and black-and-white confrontations, three cobblers gathered together will remain just three chaotic cobblers, never yielding the wisdom of a Zhuge Liang.
4. Conclusion: Seeking a Balance Between Public Will and Expertise
Democracy should not be the graveyard of professionalism, nor should public will become a fig leaf for populist spoils.
To overcome these “democratic side effects,” Taiwanese society must rebuild respect for the professional civil service system and scientific evidence. Bureaucracies and academic institutions must find the courage to withstand the media storms of political parties, while the public, when exercising their right to speak and question, should maintain reverence for professional knowledge and refuse to be swept away by political populism.
Only by separating the “freedom to speak” from the “expertise of decision-making” can we puncture the lies of political businessmen and their flanks, steering public policy back to the rational track.
Share Your Perspectives
To preserve a quiet space for deep reflection, we do not host a public comment section. If you have insights on this article, click below to share it to your own social space and start a meaningful conversation with your network.