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.
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Media said that several pan-blue figures — among them former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), former KMT legislator Lee De-wei (李德維), former KMT Central Committee member Vincent Hsu (徐正文), New Party Chairman Wu Cheng-tien (吳成典), former New Party legislator Chou chuan (周荃) and New Party Deputy Secretary-General You Chih-pin (游智彬) — yesterday attended the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) military parade commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. China’s Xinhua news agency reported that foreign leaders were present alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean leader Kim
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) is expected to be summoned by the Taipei City Police Department after a rally in Taipei on Saturday last week resulted in injuries to eight police officers. The Ministry of the Interior on Sunday said that police had collected evidence of obstruction of public officials and coercion by an estimated 1,000 “disorderly” demonstrators. The rally — led by Huang to mark one year since a raid by Taipei prosecutors on then-TPP chairman and former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) — might have contravened the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法), as the organizers had