Wang Feng-sheng's Perspective: Democracy Can Compete, But Institutions Must Not Stop

Recently, the National Communications Commission (NCC) has once again become a focal point of public attention, as its commissioners' terms have expired while new appointments remain under review. On the surface, this appears to be a political battle over the appointment of an independent agency. However, a deeper look reveals that what is truly being tested is the resilience of the democratic system itself.

Democratic politics naturally allows for competition between differing positions, even permitting disagreements and stalemates between ruling and opposition parties over key appointments. Yet while political debate is acceptable, institutions must not lose their ability to function. The value of democracy lies in allowing diverse voices to be heard; the value of institutions lies in ensuring that, despite differing voices, the basic operations of the state continue uninterrupted.

The NCC is not an ordinary administrative body. It bears critical responsibilities in regulating communications and broadcasting, maintaining media order, and safeguarding public interest. When a legally established independent agency cannot fully exercise its statutory duties due to delays in personnel appointments, the issue is no longer simply about 'who becomes a commissioner,' but whether the public institutions citizens rely on can continue functioning amid political competition.

This situation calls for a reexamination of a fundamental question in Taiwan's democratic system: where should the boundaries of democratic competition lie? In a democratic society, differing positions between ruling and opposition parties are normal; policy disagreements are part of everyday democratic life; and rigorous legislative scrutiny of independent agency appointments is a crucial responsibility of the legislature. The problem is not the existence of competition, but whether such competition comes at the cost of institutional functionality.

If the outcome of political competition is a prolonged vacancy in a legally mandated agency, resulting in the inability to fulfill key statutory functions, then what needs to be reviewed is not just a single appointment case, but whether the entire institutional design possesses sufficient resilience.

A democratic system must not function only in favorable conditions. A truly mature democracy continues to operate the basic institutions of the state even when opinions are most divided and political tensions are highest. The government is not the private property of any political party, and independent agencies should not be pawns in political battles. Whether in power or in opposition, all parties must eventually face the same reality: today you may block your opponent through political means, but tomorrow you may suffer from the institutional paralysis you once created.

A good institutional design should not assume that all political actors will always be rational, nor should it assume perpetual cooperation between parties. On the contrary, it should anticipate political conflict and still preserve a minimal space for institutional operation when such conflict arises. This is what is known as institutional resilience.

Taiwan's democracy has come a long way. What we now need to consider is not merely whether democracy is 'sufficient,' but whether our institutions can withstand the pressures of intense political competition.

We must not treat every institutional stagnation as just another political skirmish, nor wait until an agency has truly lost functionality before discussing remedies. Once an institution stops functioning, the impact does not fall solely on political parties or politicians, but on all citizens who depend on the system for their daily lives.

Therefore, ruling and opposition parties alike should establish a shared底线: competition is acceptable, but not at the expense of basic institutional functionality; opposition to appointments is legitimate, but not if it leads to endless governance vacuums. This is not advocacy for any particular side, but a defense of the democratic system itself.

Taiwan has traveled a long road from authoritarianism to democracy. What we now truly need to protect is not only elections, party competition, and freedom of speech, but also the often-overlooked institutions that sustain the normal functioning of the state.

The maturity of democracy is not the absence of conflict, but the ability of institutions to move forward despite conflict. Democracy can compete, but institutions must not stop; politics can be adversarial, but the state must not become dysfunctional. This should be the fundamental底线 that Taiwan's democracy must uphold.

*The author is a Distinguished Professor at National Kaohsiung University.