An acting major wasnât able to give an address because the opposition party occupied the podium to demonstrate against the elected majorâs absence.
From your title (âTaiwan is a democracyâ in quotation marks which could be an indicator of irony or sarcasm), I assume your point is that this somehow proves that Taiwan is not a democracy?
Or whatâs the point of this threadâŚ?
DPP, âthe party of democracyâ stopping the democratically elected mayor from speaking.
He canât speak? Since when? Who prevented him from speaking?
Okay, prevented him from formally addressing the city council. You rarely, if ever see this shit in civilized democratic countries. Itâs always some banana republic or Taiwan.
Perhaps maybe he should get off the campaign trail. He doesnât want to be mayor anyways.
Itâs more or less expected that presidential hopefuls will take a leave of absence from office while they campaign. His two predecessors did the same if I recall. It would be a disservice to his constituents if he stayed in the role while not having the time to do it properly.
He has a job to do here. And each of his predecessors lost the election. It is a disservice to us New Taipeinians that heâs abandoned ship before the end of his term. He could do 2028 if he wants to be president so bad.
Is having this appointee of âActing Mayorâ that was not elected somehow more democratic? I support the efforts to not let an illegitimate appointee address New Taipeinians.
Could say the same thing about the VP, surely he must also be neglecting his duties to the nation whilst he campaigns
The Vice President is not a lawmaker and has no constituents. The Vice President is not an elected post. Furthermore, the Vice President has no official duties.
The President is doing her job.
I donât think the deputy mayor can be called an illegitimate appointee. What was illegitimate about the appointment?
The mayor has no extenuating circumstances for which he needs to take a leave. He put party before his constituents. He made this choice. He was not incapacitated in any way.
At the same time, to put the title in scare quotes because you disagree with the actions of the protest cheapens the meaning of the word democracy. Are you not here disagreeing? have you been rounded up and imprisoned?
You could argue he is putting the country before his constituents. Iâm not saying thatâs okay, just thatâs what it is. And anyway, what right does any of this give to the DPP to stop the mayor from addressing the city council? Itâs an embarrassment to the so called democracy that they claim to uphold
If you recall, the mayor is not here and never intended to make an address. It is the appointed, unelected âActing Mayorâ they are protesting.
Itâs just a show for the cameras, if no cameras nobody would care about his speech, the legislators just need to show their party voters that they care enough to do somethingâŚ
I rather look at the US senate, they have had some really nice fist fights over the years, thatâs entertainment 
They didnât stop the âdemocratically elected mayorâ from speaking, but his stand-in basically.
Also, the word democracy comes from Greek and has the following meaning:
The word democracy comes from the Greek words âdemosâ, meaning people, and âKratosâ meaning power or rule
In a working democracy, all power therefore should come from the people. People have different opinions and a democracy should give power and a voice to even minorities. Thus, the opposition is an important part of a democracy - its job is to supervise the ruling party.
A democracy doesnât mean that you elect a representative every couple of years and those representatives can then rule without limits and as they please just because they were elected some time earlier. Itâs not âanti-democraticâ if the opposition speaks up against issues!
Yes you do. You havenât been watching.
Doesnât matter. Under the democratic process that they fought so hard to get, thatâs how it works. The acting mayor has as much right to be there as the proper mayor would, and she is likely working under his guidance. Hou didnât exactly hide the fact he was going to be running for president when they re-elected him again last year.
No, thatâs exactly how it does not work.
If you expect unbounded power as a democratically elected representative and no contradiction to your actions by the opposition, then you havenât understood the core principle behind democracy.
âFunnilyâ enough, authoritarian regimes will often use the argument of âdemocracyâ (We have been chosen by the majority, so we can rule as we please! Itâs democracy, bro!) to silence their opposition and their criticsâŚ
Remember, also Hitler was basically elected democratically. But that didnât make what followed a democracyâŚ
Hou repeatedly promised he would not run for president.
And what you are seeing is called a filibuster. Itâs a staple of quite a few democracies. Most commonly used in the US. But, also used in the UK, Canada, Australia and other Westminster democracies.
I am appreciative you donât agree with the tactic, but I definitely disagree with this sky-is-falling-because-i-donât-agree-with-a-tactic thing. I see it as crying wolf and a cheapening of a wordâs meaning.
I disagree that an incumbent should be allowed to run for another office that would start before the term of their current office ends with a guaranteed return to their post upon the failure of their campaign. I think it is undemocratic, but I certainly wonât throw the baby out with the bathwater and start claiming that we are not a democracy for it. I was able to freely express my opinion and citizens still have a free and fair process to vote and voice their opinions. Thus, it is still a democracy. If we start claiming everything we disagree with somehow makes us a non-free country, then. By golly nothing is a democracy. If the DPP broke the rules, they will be reprimanded.
But one thing that someone believes is undemocratic makes not a dictatorship.