In the aftermath of the recall votes on Saturday last week, international media headlines declared: “Voters in Taiwan reject bid to oust China-friendly lawmakers” (The Associated Press, July 26) and: “Attempt to unseat 24 ‘pro-China’ opposition politicians in Taiwan fails” (Guardian, July 26).
The dominant narrative is that voters embraced the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), despite its pro-China policies and orientation, with some interpreting it as a sign that society is becoming hesitant in its resistance to China’s aggression. However, most Taiwanese who voted against the mass recall denied that their decision was about China.
What could be made of this stark divergence in interpretation?
The recall movement began as a grassroots campaign spearheaded by civic groups alarmed by KMT lawmakers’ obstructionism and perceived leniency toward Beijing. However, as the movement gained momentum, the KMT reframed the movement as a Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-backed assault on the opposition. The KMT shifted the narrative from “citizens vs lawmakers” to “the opposition vs the authoritarian ruling party.”
Many who opposed the recalls resonated with the KMT’s statements. They believed that the DPP’s China warnings were exaggerated. Many insisted that their vote was about “disciplining the ruling party” and “achieving a balance of power,” wanting the KMT-TPP bloc to retain its majority to counterbalance a perceived DPP monopoly of power.
The KMT’s reframing also used gestures such as a NT$10,000 universal cash handout. Although widely criticized as pork-barrel politics, it solidified loyalty among supporters.
To paraphrase sociologist Randall Collins, the actions formed a dense chain of interaction rituals that sustained strong emotional energy within the KMT’s base and even among segments of independent voters, ensuring high voter turnout and enthusiasm.
Meanwhile, the DPP hesitated to fully embrace the recall movement, fearing that overt involvement would validate the KMT’s “DPP oppression” narrative.
However, this left civic groups emotionally and organizationally vulnerable. To be sure, volunteers and activists demonstrated formidable resilience, dedication and creativity in their attempt to develop an inclusive narrative, portraying the recall as a fight for all Taiwanese against unqualified politicians. They also built important networks of committed volunteers. However, the recall effort demanded resources they lacked, so it was difficult to coordinate effective solidarity rituals to help expand the campaign’s “we-ness.”
Most international media coverage after the votes overlooked the “framing competition.” Having largely neglected the months-long civic campaign, the outlets defaulted to framing it as pro-China vs pro-independence.
Reports by Reuters and the Financial Times emphasized vote tallies and legislative balances (“Taiwan move to recall opposition lawmakers fails,” Reuters, July 26; “Taiwanese voters reject motion to recall opposition lawmakers,” Financial Times, July 27), while the South China Morning Post (SCMP) and Foreign Policy referenced political polarization (“Taiwan recall shock waves likely no matter who prevails at ballots, analysts say,” SCMP, July 25; “Taiwan’s recall elections and China’s shadow,” Foreign Policy, July 25). Yet none traced how narrative control shaped the recall’s outcome.
By interpreting the recalls as a referendum on China policy, international media might have overestimated voters’ policy-based rationality and overlooked how discontent toward ruling elites drives participation. In contrast, Taiwanese who rejected the recalls saw it as a domestic power-check, not a statement on cross-strait relations.
This disconnect underscores the KMT’s framing success. It should prompt the DPP to reflect on its utterly ineffective messaging. It might encourage civic groups to reimagine how to enact solidarity rituals. It also invites Taiwanese to recognize that, in the eyes of the world, their votes are never not about China. It challenges international journalists to document how local politicians construct, deploy and even manipulate different frames.
Perhaps all actors in and observers of the story could draw lessons from the contrasting local and international interpretations of the mass recall’s outcome.
Lo Ming-cheng is a professor of sociology at the University of California-Davis whose research addresses civil society, political cultures and medical sociology.
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
RSS