Marco Werman from PRI's radio program The World interviewed Taiwan's Digital Minister Audrey Tang today about her role and, more generally, the role of technology and democracy in Taiwan's thus far successful battle against COVID-19. The whole interview is worth reading (and listening to), but there are a couple of quotes that really intrigued me.
[Werman:] When I think about this intersection specifically of public health and technology — philosophically, what would you say is Taiwan's motivation?
[Tang:] Well, I used to tweet that in democratic Taiwan, ministers trust you. And radically trusting the citizens, I think, is the main philosophy. Because we're a very young democracy, having the direct presidential election only in 1996, we see democracy itself as a set of technologies that we can tweak and improve so that it’s not just about a few people talking to millions of people but rather listening to millions of people.
This quote strikes me by her characterization of democracy as "a set of technologies" rather than as a value or a political system. I just Googled "democracy as a set of technologies," and the first page of results included sites questioning whether technology would save democracy, kill democracy, or transform democracy, but nothing about democracy as a technology (or a set of technologies). There was a link to a Wikipedia article on "E-democracy," but even that doesn't seem to be getting exactly at the sense that Tang is speaking of the relationship of democracy and technology. I'm not a political scientist, so I don't know how "original" Tang's formulation is, but I find it fascinating for how it casts democracy as something almost pliable--that it can be "tweaked" and "improved," rather than being something frozen in some centuries-old documents.
The other quote that struck me had to do with the relationship between Tang's spiritual beliefs and her work in politics:
[Werman:] So, calling yourself a poetician, I'm not surprised to know that you're also pretty in tune with meditation, Daoism specifically. How do you think that helps you as a member of government?
[Tang:] One of the central tenets of Daoism is this way of not doing. When we in the government try to do something, we kind of limit the public sectors’ imaginations. That is to say, when career public servants are deprived of the freedom to innovate because the high-level politicians think they know best, we lose a very important ally in connecting with the public. So, not doing is the most important thing.
From what I remember from my Chinese poetry class way back when, the saying was that when one became a scholar-official, they were Confucian, but when they were kicked out of their position, they became a Daoist. I don't know how true that is, but there seems to be quite a bit of discussion of the role of wu wei (無為) in Chinese statecraft. According to this Wikipedia article, both Confucianism and Daoism have contributed to the concept (or concepts) of wu wei (defined in the article as "inexertion," "inaction," or "effortless action") as both a personal philosophy and as a governmental practice. In fact, Tang's comment about the need for high-level politicians to allow public servants to innovate is reminiscent of the Confucian or Legalist ideas of governance--again, according to the Wikipedia article (I know, I know, but I don't have time to dive into scholarship on Chinese statecraft right now!),
Unable to find his philosopher-king, Confucius placed his hope in virtuous ministers.[22] Apart from the Confucian ruler's "divine essence" (ling) "ensuring the fecundity of his people" and fertility of the soil, Creel notes that he was also assisted by "five servants", who "performed the active functions of government".[10] Xun Kuang's Xunzi, a Confucian adaptation to Qin "Legalism", defines the ruler in much the same sense, saying that the ruler "need only correct his person" because the "abilities of the ruler appear in his appointment of men to office": namely, appraising virtue and causing others to perform.
(I'll keep that in the original formatting--hopefully the links will work.) And later on, to Legalist Shen Buhai
is attributed the dictum "The Sage ruler relies on method and does not rely on wisdom; he relies on technique, not on persuasions",[26] and used the term wu wei to mean that the ruler, though vigilant, should not interfere with the duties of his ministers, saying "One who has the right way of government does not perform the functions of the five (aka various) officials, and yet is the master of the government".[27][28]
Sinologist Herrlee G. Creel explains: "The ruler's subjects are so numerous, and so on alert to discover his weaknesses and get the better of him, that it is hopeless for him alone as one man to try to learn their characteristics and control them by his knowledge... the ruler must refrain from taking the initiative, and from making himself conspicuous – and therefore vulnerable – by taking any overt action."[36]
No comments:
Post a Comment