Taiwanese democracy has weathered many storms — martial law, diplomatic isolation, economic uncertainty and rising authoritarian pressure from Beijing. Yet today, the gravest threat to its survival might come not from across the Taiwan Strait, but from within.
The recent mass-recall effort aimed at ousting 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers might have failed at the ballot box, but it succeeded in revealing a dangerous truth: Taiwanese politics is broken.
The major political parties increasingly view each other not as competitors, but as enemies. Instead of debating policies, they trade accusations of treason. Instead of compromise, they choose sabotage. The legislature, paralyzed by obstruction and mutual contempt, is no longer a site of democratic deliberation — it is a battlefield.
The polarization is no longer just a nuisance; it is a national security risk.
An analysis published on Friday in Foreign Affairs by political analyst Lev Nachman and Academia Sinica Institute of Political Science assistant research fellow Yen Wei-ting (顏維婷) bluntly warned in its headline that “Taiwan’s democracy is in trouble.” The article details how political dysfunction and mutual distrust have eroded the nation’s ability to respond to growing threats from China.
“Taiwan’s leaders are prioritizing defeating one another over defending the nation,” they wrote.
No one who has watched recent brawls in the legislature or witnessed the bitter recall campaigns would disagree.
Beijing has ramped up military threats and coercive pressure, while Taiwanese lawmakers are freezing military budgets, demonizing political opponents and refusing to cooperate, even on matters as existential as defense policy. President William Lai’s (賴清德) administration has called for bolstering deterrence; the opposition has blocked funding. While the Chinese military expands its drills, Taiwan’s politicians sharpen their knives, aimed at each other.
In a democracy, disagreement is natural, but affective polarization — the toxic belief that anyone who disagrees must be corrupt, unpatriotic or dangerous — is corrosive. It eats away at national solidarity.
Nachman and Yen wrote that 85 percent of Democratic Progressive Party supporters said they would fight to defend Taiwan if China invaded; that number drops to 4 percent among KMT voters. What happens in a crisis if half the country blames the other for provoking war?
Beijing knows this. It has already tried to divide Taiwan with online disinformation and whisper campaigns about war and chaos. The truth is that China is not creating the polarization; it is exploiting it, and Taiwanese are making its job easier.
This moment calls for leadership not from one party, but from all sides. Lai must tone down moralistic language about “impurities.” KMT and Taiwan People’s Party leaders must stop comparing democratic rivals to Nazis. Defending Taiwan does not mean agreeing on every policy; it means agreeing on what is worth defending: institutions, freedoms, the right for Taiwanese to decide their own future.
This has been done before. In the early days of COVID-19, the government and civil society set aside their differences to act swiftly and decisively. Lawmakers can do it again, if they choose unity over unification and cooperation over collapse.
Democracy is not just about elections — it is about the ability to govern — and in the face of China’s growing threats, dysfunction is no longer an option. A house divided against itself cannot stand, and it certainly cannot fight.
Simon Tang is an adjunct professor at California State University, Fullerton, who lectures on international relations.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS