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.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS