On Saturday, Taiwanese are to vote in mass recalls targeting Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers. Although the campaign has consumed public attention over the past few months, remarkably, it has barely registered in the international media.
For a democracy often described as “vibrant” and “resilient,” Taiwan is navigating one of its most significant internal democratic crises in recent memory, but with only a few global witnesses. That silence should concern everyone.
The recall movement emerged in response to a controversial legislative push by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who together control a majority in the Legislative Yuan. Although the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) retained the presidency, the opposition has used its majority to push through a series of bills that many see as an assault on democratic norms and national security.
Critics, including legal academics, activists and watchdog groups, have voiced serious concerns, saying the bills were rushed through with minimal or no debate. Budgets have been frozen or slashed with little justification, disrupting day-to-day governance. Perhaps most alarmingly, the defense budget has been targeted and national security regulations have been undermined, amid China’s escalating military threats.
The developments have sparked protests and fierce public debate within Taiwan, but beyond its borders, the issue has barely made a ripple. Why the silence?
One explanation might lie in a blind spot shared by much of the international liberal media: a narrative template that instinctively romanticizes the opposition as bearers of democratic virtue. In reporting on social movements and civil resistance, especially in non-Western contexts, Western media attention often gravitates toward the familiar script of brave protesters confronting an unjust ruling party. The Sunflower movement was embraced in precisely that manner.
The KMT and TPP are seeking to cast themselves in a similar light, framing the recall campaign as a vindictive effort by the ruling DPP — an attack on the opposition and a threat to democratic pluralism. However, in this case, the lines are blurry: The opposition wields dominant legislative power and is seeking to expand it.
In a government where the executive and legislative branches are controlled by opposing camps, it is unclear whether “opposition” is even the right word.
In contrast to the KMT’s and TPP’s narrative, the mass recall effort was not initiated by the DPP. It was started by civil society groups deeply alarmed by what they see as an abuse of power by the KMT-TPP bloc. The campaigns are from a grassroots level, decentralized and at times disorganized citizen groups who have taken on the unglamorous work of exercising their legal right to recall politicians they perceive as unfit to serve. They are collecting signatures, navigating legal hurdles, explaining sometimes tedious policy concerns and peacefully holding signs with slogans on the streets.
Their stories do not fit the usual mold. They are not standing in front of tanks or occupying government buildings. They are not university students facing riot police. Their resistance is more procedural than theatrical (although occasionally, hostile passersby do hurl insults).
However, conspiracy theories abound, and such citizens have been cast as attack dogs secretly employed by the DPP. To outside observers, their story can seem confusing and hard to dramatize, as it is not always clear who is the David and who is the Goliath in this political drama.
As such, the citizens who initiated the mass recall movement are doubly marginalized: First, by lawmakers who refuse to engage in deliberative norms, and second, by an international media landscape that too often overlooks defenders of democratic institutions when their story is not easy to package in a familiar framework.
The lack of international engagement is dangerous. This fight belongs to Taiwan, but it also needs the world to document and report.
Taiwan’s internal crisis bears global implications, as it plays out in the shadow of what Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Anne Applebaum calls “Autocracy, Inc” — the loose but formidable network of authoritarian states that lend each other material support and narrative cover to discredit democracy from within.
The world cannot afford to ignore how the crisis in Taiwan was manufactured and is being reckoned with. As an academic from Taiwan now based in the US, I have watched this crisis unfold with urgency and frustration, not only at the democratic erosion at home, but at the silence it has met abroad.
As Taiwan prepares for the first batch of recalls, we are mobilized to vote. We await a turning point — and we must bear witness.
Lo Ming-cheng is a professor of sociology at the University of California, Davis, whose research addresses civil society, political cultures and medical sociology.
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Young supporters of former Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) were detained for posting the names and photographs of judges and prosecutors believed to be overseeing the Core Pacific City redevelopment corruption case. The supporters should be held responsible for their actions. As for Ko’s successor, TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), he should reflect on whether his own comments are provocative and whether his statements might be misunderstood. Huang needs to apologize to the public and the judiciary. In the article, “Why does sorry seem to be the hardest word?” the late political commentator Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) wrote
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on