Political dynasties and democratization: A case study of Taiwan
| Published date | 01 September 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/20578911221148830 |
| Author | Christian Schafferer |
| Date | 01 September 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Special Issue: Political Dynasties in Asia |
Political dynasties and
democratization: A case study
of Taiwan
Christian Schafferer
Overseas Chinese University, Taiwan
Abstract
Political families in transitional societies are often seen in the context of corruption, demo-
cratic regression, deterioration of socio-economic development, inequality, anddeprivation.
High levels of dynasticism, however, also existinadvanceddemocraticsocieties.Usingthe
example of Taiwan, this article explores the factors behind the evolution of electoral dynas-
ties and how the behavior of hereditary politicians has been conditioned by democratization.
More specifically, the article argues that legacy politicians are not per se the Pandora’sboxof
low-quality politics. Rather, they act like other networks of personal relations. As such, self-
imposed ethical standards and inherited cultural norms may substantially restrain the intrin-
sic particularistic potentials of such networks, but in the long run only political moderniza-
tion can prevent them from cultivating political capitalism—the predatory use of public
resources. That is, political modernization conditions the behavior of electoral dynasties.
It transforms particularistic networks into more progressive and programmatic forms of
dynasticism.
Keywords
democratization, dynasties, personal networks, Taiwan
Introduction
Electoral dynasties emerged under Japanese colonialism with the introduction of local council elec-
tions in 1935. During the Japanese colonial era (1895–1945) and KMT authoritarianism (1945–
1987), state–elite settlements led to a proliferation of elected hereditary politicians. In a recent
study, Batto (2018: 501) asserts that in contemporary Taiwan about 27 percent of legislators
Corresponding author:
Christian Schafferer,Department of International Trade, Overseas Chinese University,100 Chiao Kwang Rd., Taichung 407,
Taiwan.
Email: chris@fule.at, chris@ocu.edu.tw
Original Research Article
Asian Journal of Comparative Politics
2023, Vol. 8(3) 708–726
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/20578911221148830
journals.sagepub.com/home/acp
have some sort of family ties and 12 percent have a relative who previously served as a legislator or
in higher office. From a comparative perspective, Taiwan has much more electoral dynasties than
most Western democracies, but considerably fewer than several other states in Asia, such as Japan,
the Philippines, and Thailand (Smith, 2018: 5).
Why study dynastic politics? Broadly speaking, the existence of dynastic politics in democratic
societies contradicts the normative vision of democratic opportunity and fairness, since legacy can-
didates benefit from additional electoral support through the inherited incumbency advantage (Fiva
and Smith, 2016; Smith, 2018: 3). Apart from that, dynasticism is believed to have far-reaching
negative impacts on the overall development of a state. Asako et al. (2015: 7) conclude in their
study that legacy politicians naturally benefit from electoral and bargaining advantages and thus
“undermine the role of electoral competition as a device for achieving desirable policies for the citi-
zens.”Several other studies found the monopolizing effect of dynastic politics to cause a deterior-
ation of socioeconomic development, inequality, and higher levels of deprivation (Mendoza et al.,
2012; Tusalem and Pe-Aguirre, 2013). Moreover, dynastic politics generates clientelistic networks
which undermine collective decision-making (Warner, 1997) and encourage illegal practices, such
as vote buying (Göbel, 2004; Teehankee, 2018). Croissant and Hellmann (2020) assert that infor-
mal patron–client networks have brought about autocratic reversals in Thailand and Cambodia, and
undermined civil liberties and horizontal accountability in the Philippines, Indonesia, and East
Timor.
As Figure 1 shows, the relationship between dynasticism and democratic development is
however anything but straightforward. There are numerous other states, such as Ireland, Japan,
Taiwan, and Iceland, exhibiting high levels of democratic development despite substantial electoral
dynasticism. On the other hand, there are several less democratic states, such as Argentina, Israel,
and India, with much lower incidences of dynasticism. Legacy politicians may thus not per se be the
Pandora’s box of low-quality politics. In this context, the newly democratized state of Taiwan is an
Figure 1. Prevalence of electoral dynasticism and state of democracy.
Source: Smith (2018: 5); Freedom House. FH Score is the averageaggregate subcategory score of Political Rights and Civil
Liberties for the years (2012–2021).
Unit: %.
Schafferer 709
To continue reading
Request your trial