Following its failed battle to remove Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Alex Tsai (蔡正元) through recall proceedings, the Appendectomy Project has been hit with NT$600,000 in fines for allegedly breaching Article 86 of the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法), which forbids publicizing ongoing recall campaigns. No one should be surprised by either of those events.
A look at the growing global use of recall procedures shows that voters are increasingly looking to kick out elected officials. We also see officials willing to use whatever methods are available to cling to their positions.
The newfound popularity of the recall election can be seen across the globe. The US, where it is available for use only at the state and local levels, has been the highest-profile user, thanks to the election of movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor of California in 2003.
However, that is just the start of it. Over the past 13 years, the US governors of California and Wisconsin have faced recall elections, as have 22 state legislators and thousands of mayors, city council members, school board officials and other elected officials. Former Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez faced a recall election and his successor, Nicolas Maduro, is being threatened with one. Over the past few years, the Romanian president and the mayors of Warsaw and Lima have all survived recall bids.
Reasons for the newfound appreciation for the recall election are varied. One reason is that in some countries, voters have only recently had a say in choosing their leaders. Now that they have that option, they like to exercise it. Of course, this does not explain the popularity of recall elections in countries with a long democratic tradition. There, we are seeing power devolve to the broader group of voters, who have become used to using direct-democracy devices. These direct votes have created an expectation that citizens will get to decide for themselves the pressing issues of the day. The recall follows this line of thinking, by making elected officials more accountable for their actions.
Other more prosaic reasons are helping fuel recalls. Technology has made it easier to run elections. The Internet, e-mail and social media allow unconnected voters to be drawn into a fight over a politician’s alleged misdeeds. Smartphones, spreadsheets and demographic data can maximize signature-gathering efforts.
Even basic items like printers and word-processing programs have helped the cause for making a low-cost political campaign more accessible to grassroots voters.
Tied in with this, recall elections have a high success rate — more than 50 percent of US officials who faced recall elections have lost their seats. This number is particularly stark when you factor in incumbents, who generally have a big advantage when they run, with a re-election rate of about 75 to 85 percent.
However, recalls result in a backlash. As Appendectomy Project leaders are finding out, supporters of recall efforts frequently run into problems with the law and elected officials.
In the US, we constantly see officials try to stop a recall by refusing to schedule a special election. This can result in officials using absurd interpretations of the law — as happened in Crystal City, Texas, which prompted the Washington Post to ask: “[Is Crystal City] the most corrupt little town in America?”
On a global scale, courts packed with supporters of elected officials try to slap down recall proceedings and even imprison supporters — a problem that Venezuelan recall supporters are facing. We generally do not see the type of fine that was handed down in Taiwan, but it should not be a surprise.
A different problem is that recall laws are sometimes drafted in such a fashion as to make a recall almost impossible. Ultra-difficult signature or voting requirements are one popular method. The Romanian president survived due to a turnout requirement. So too did Taiwanese legislators. The Venezuelan president might be banking on the same type of law.
The hurdles set up by elected officials might prevent recalls in Taiwan and elsewhere, but the Appendectomy Project showed that the popular focus on being able to remove officials is one that is likely to keep the recall election as a popular weapon for voters.
Joshua Spivak is a senior fellow at the Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform at Wagner College in New York State.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing