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
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
RSS