During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德).
While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia.
Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its legacy of political violence. Even after Taiwan’s democratization, the KMT continues to revere its former authoritarian leader Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), whose human rights abuses in Taiwan during the White Terror period devastated countless families.
It is precisely because the KMT never had to face its own history of dictatorship that it can use the label so frivolously. It is also because Taiwanese society has not yet unequivocally named the abuses and the abuser that the manifestations of dictatorship have faded from its collective memory.
The rally was organized largely as a last-ditch effort to resist the investigations into allegations of fraud committed by the KMT in several recall petitions targeting Democratic Progressive Party officials. Prosecutors uncovered several instances in which KMT staff members were suspected to have forged signatures to meet the thresholds required to initiate recall votes. The KMT has attempted to frame the government’s investigations as evidence of authoritarian overreach.
However, this reverses the logic of democratic accountability. The key issue is not that the opposition is being investigated — it is that there is substantial and concrete evidence of fraud.
In Yilan County, three KMT staff members admitted forging documents, including signatures from deceased people, as reported in an online article by the Taipei Times (“Three KMT staffers held incommunicado over recall petition fraud,” April 25). Inspecting such misconduct is not a sign of dictatorship, it is a necessary function of the rule of law.
Meanwhile, the mass recall movement targeting KMT legislators is not only gaining momentum, but also expanding its appeal across social sectors. Perhaps most importantly, some KMT supporters have crossed party lines to sign the petitions to recall KMT legislators. These traditional KMT voters are reconsidering their allegiance, as they have become alarmed by how the party seems increasingly comfortable with and even supportive of Beijing’s authoritarian rule and military aggression toward Taiwan.
As reported by Domino Theory, a growing sentiment among the party’s base is that, while they do not intend to annihilate the KMT, they want to make its leaders “think about what their stance on China is.”
The KMT’s attempt to cast legal investigations into alleged fraud as political persecution distorts the principles of democratic accountability and yet this very distortion has sparked a moment of unexpected political clarity.
In a society long divided by partisanship and historical tensions, diverse voices are converging around a shared recognition that the defense of democratic norms transcends traditional allegiances.
Three decades ago, when Taiwan embraced a peaceful transition to democracy in lieu of processes of truth and reconciliation, it might have inadvertently missed an opportunity to internalize the necessary lessons from the KMT’s authoritarian rule. In exposing the danger in the conflation of democratic accountability with dictatorship, the current crisis might begin to catalyze the consolidation of civic solidarity based on democratic norms rather than ethnicity or party loyalty.
Lo Ming-cheng is a professor of sociology at the University of California-Davis whose research addresses civil society, political cultures and medical sociology.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) has said that the armed forces must reach a high level of combat readiness by 2027. That date was not simply picked out of a hat. It has been bandied around since 2021, and was mentioned most recently by US Senator John Cornyn during a question to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday. It first surfaced during a hearing in the US in 2021, when then-US Navy admiral Philip Davidson, who was head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said: “The threat [of military