At the United Nations, the European Union, and elsewhere, “citizens’ initiatives” to introduce resolutions and laws are now allowed. What about Taiwan?
by Willy Fautré*
*A paper prepared for the International Forum on World Citizenship Day, April 1, 2024, “Practicing Freedom of Religion and Human Dignity: The Human Rights Case of Tai Ji Men,” Taipei, Taiwan.
The first day of April is known in many countries as April Fool’s Day, a day of fun, of joy and of laugh but in Taiwan it is the World Citizenship Day dedicated to public exchanges of views about how to be responsible world citizens. This reflexion is part of other initiatives of the same type in the world.
The UN is working at a World Citizens Initiative, which would enable individuals in any country to have a say at the UN level on any domestic or global issue. In the project it is expected that geographically representative self-organized citizens’ committees can launch an initiative in support of a given proposal. If they receive the support of more than five million people from different world regions within a certain time frame, the General Assembly or the Security Council would have to put the proposal on their agenda and give committees’ representatives the chance to present their arguments.
In many countries, some instruments allow citizens to provide input to be considered by the executive or legislative branch of government.
In the European Union, since 2012, the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) has been giving citizens the right to submit legislative proposals to the European Commission. This instrument was established mainly because of the democratic deficit that EU citizens were experiencing.
In principle, the European Citizens’ Initiative enables everyday citizens to identify a problem, propose a solution, and submit their proposal to the European Commission for review, based on the support of one million EU citizens. This has the potential to revolutionize citizenship participation at the highest political levels and represents the first and only transnational tool of participatory democracy that exists in the world. This is some sort of participatory democracy and this instrument represents much more than freedom of expression and freedom of assembly taken together.
When a state persists in turning a deaf ear to the voice of the people, such a mechanism offers to citizens a Plan B, another opportunity for an effective remedy.
For many years now, Tai Ji Men has been deprived of the possibility to get justice in its conflict with the National Taxation Bureau, which depends from the Ministry of Finance but which has arrogated to itself more rights than the courts and the successive Ministers of Finance. Tai Ji Men’s reputation has been damaged by the unfounded accusation of tax evasion by the tax administration and Tai Ji Men’s property has been stolen by the authorities in Taiwan.
The confiscation of Tai Ji Men’s sacred land in Miaoli in 2020 was an after-effect of a political campaign against spiritual movements undertaken more than twenty-eight years ago. It also violated freedom of religion or belief, and the right to take part in cultural life as protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Due to its unique international status, Taiwan does not have direct access to the United Nations mechanisms and in Asia there is no supra-national court as in Europe or in the Americas. This makes it even more important for Taiwan to proactively work with their friends in the international community.
On the proposed UN model and the EU model, Taiwan should introduce a sort of Taiwanese Citizens Initiative, which would allow its people to bypass and transcend political, judicial, and administrative rigidities and blockages. Giving back a direct voice to the Taiwanese people is democracy.
In the case of Tai Ji Men, that is how the limits of transitional justice from which they cannot benefit could be legally overcome and put an end to 28 years of denial of justice.
Such a mechanism could be a solution to give back to Tai Ji Men its sacred land and to acknowledge that they were never guilty of tax evasion, thus restoring their honor and dignity. It would be a win-win operation. Nobody would lose with a pragmatic solution to the Tai Ji Men case. In fact, it would publicly reaffirm Taiwan’s commitment to human rights, religious liberty, and democracy.
