The existence of a loyal opposition is a very important normative principle of contemporary constitutional democracy, but in Taiwan it has never been given the importance or attention it deserves, either in theory or in practice.
People might intuitively think that this principle requires opposition parties to accept and perform some kind of loyal duty and commentators often invoke this idea when they cast doubt on an opposition party or criticize its actions.
For example, some people say that a particular opposition party is disloyal because it does not sincerely identify with the nation and its Constitution and it does not give them its genuine loyalty. Others say that such and such an opposition party does nothing but oppose for opposition’s sake, so it is not loyal enough.
No matter which party is in power, opposition parties that harbor ulterior motives or are resistant to change are often accused of stirring up political strife and obstructing the nation’s development.
Opposition parties and dissidents do have certain responsibilities with regard to justice and the common good of the whole community.
However, when we subject dissenting voices to tests of loyalty, if we are not careful it could have the effect of encouraging authoritarianism and suppressing democracy.
The idea of a loyal opposition as a principle of constitutional government was first proposed in 19th-century Britain and is seen as one of its greatest contributions to political civilization, because it broke with the former pedantic concept of loyalty. It means readily accepting the legitimacy of minority opposition to the majority, and it created a democratic system that allows opposition parties to play an important role.
In other words, one cannot say that an opposition party is disloyal because it criticizes and opposes those in power, but more than that, it should also be recognized that when opposition parties fearlessly raise opposing views, they do so out of a lofty and precious idea of loyalty.
In this regard, contemporary judicial philosopher Jeremy Waldron said that this principle of constitutional democracy serves the purpose of warning the ruling party that it should not cast doubt on the loyalty of its opponents lightly.
These days dissidents and political opponents do not get locked up at the drop of a hat, and that might be a valuable democratic achievement in itself, but if the nation wants to deepen its constitutional democracy, it is not enough to safeguard political dissidents’ freedom of expression and their right to political participation. Opponents must be given genuine respect.
For example, if an opposition party offers pertinent criticism or constructive advice, the ruling party should willingly accept it rather than obstinately sticking to its guns. It might be a tough moral challenge for a ruling party to show that much respect for the opposition, but that is what one should expect in a democracy.
After all, the democracy Taiwanese believe in has never been one in which the minority must simply submit to the majority.
Su Yen-tu is an assistant research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institutum Iurisprudentiae and a member of the Taipei Society.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US