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
In a meeting with Haitian Minister of Foreign Affairs Jean-Victor Harvel Jean-Baptiste on Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) vowed to continue providing aid to Haiti. Taiwan supports Haiti with development in areas such as agriculture, healthcare and education through initiatives run by the Taiwan International Cooperation and Development Fund (ICDF). The nation it has established itself as a responsible, peaceful and innovative actor committed to global cooperation, Jean-Baptiste said. Testimonies such as this give Taiwan a voice in the global community, where it often goes unheard. Taiwan’s reception in Haiti also contrasts with how China has been perceived in countries in the region
On Monday, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) delivered a welcome speech at the ILA-ASIL Asia-Pacific Research Forum, addressing more than 50 international law experts from more than 20 countries. With an aim to refute the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) claim to be the successor to the 1945 Chinese government and its assertion that China acquired sovereignty over Taiwan, Lin articulated three key legal positions in his speech: First, the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration were not legally binding instruments and thus had no legal effect for territorial disposition. All determinations must be based on the San Francisco Peace
On April 13, I stood in Nanan (南安), a Bunun village in southern Hualien County’s Jhuosi Township (卓溪), absorbing lessons from elders who spoke of the forest not as backdrop, but as living presence — relational, sacred and full of spirit. I was there with fellow international students from National Dong Hwa University (NDHU) participating in a field trip that would become one of the most powerful educational experiences of my life. Ten days later, a news report in the Taipei Times shattered the spell: “Formosan black bear shot and euthanized in Hualien” (April 23, page 2). A tagged bear, previously released
The world has become less predictable, less rules-based, and more shaped by the impulses of strongmen and short-term dealmaking. Nowhere is this more consequential than in East Asia, where the fate of democratic Taiwan hinges on how global powers manage — or mismanage — tensions with an increasingly assertive China. The return of Donald Trump to the White House has deepened the global uncertainty, with his erratic, highly personalized foreign-policy approach unsettling allies and adversaries alike. Trump appears to treat foreign policy like a reality show. Yet, paradoxically, the global unpredictability may offer Taiwan unexpected deterrence. For China, the risk of provoking the
RSS