Great recall movement a democratic stress test
The “Great Recall” movement — targeting 31 legislators, more than one-fourth of the Legislative Yuan — marked a milestone in Taiwan’s constitutional history. While the results might not have shifted parliamentary power, the campaign’s institutional, social and geopolitical effects highlight a crucial turning point in the nation’s democratic development.
For years, Taiwan’s recall system had been largely symbolic — constrained by high thresholds and organizational barriers. This recall attempt broke the mold. It showed rising civic consciousness and demand for accountability beyond quadrennial elections. Citizens used constitutional tools to express dissatisfaction with lawmakers’ behavior — especially actions seen as undemocratic or contrary to national interest.
Targeting Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and allied opposition legislators, the movement was not simply partisan, it responded to dysfunction: budget blocks, attempts at a premier ouster and unilateral power grabs. It also marked a shift from candidate-based to behavior-based judgement.
The recall was a defense against Chinese influence, too. Lawmakers seen as aligned with Beijing faced electoral backlash. The message was clear: Taiwan’s sovereignty and democracy are non-negotiable.
More significant was deepening polarization rooted in national identity. Recall supporters and opponents did not divide neatly by party lines, but by positions on China, reform and sovereignty.
Media dynamics intensified this split. Chinese disinformation, social media echo chambers and partisan rhetoric promoted an “us vs them” mindset. Appeals became moral: “If you support this legislator, you do not love Taiwan.” This framing pushed out moderates and discouraged centrist participation, empowering mobilized extremes.
Although the recall failed, it left a political impact. Lawmakers are more cautious, especially on issues such as defense, China and constitutional reform.
At the same time, the legislature’s moral authority weakened. If many lawmakers are seen as disconnected from public sentiment, the Legislative Yuan risks losing institutional credibility. This opens a space for the executive branch.
This might also prompt broader reform — curbing legislative abuse and clarifying the rules about no-confidence votes or procedural overreach. The recall could pave the way for amending constitutional or legislative provisions to restore balance.
A recall is a high-risk, but vital democratic tool. It tests institutional strength, civil society engagement and a divided society’s ability to pursue reform. The level of participation showed that the movement was not driven by partisanship, but by a belief in accountability and resilience under authoritarian pressure.
Beijing watched closely. A successful recall would have shown that Taiwanese could reject unification-leaning politicians. However, a failed one lets China say that the ruling party misused democratic tools.
To the US and other democratic partners, this sends a mixed message. It affirms Taiwanese civic vitality, but raises concerns about polarization, populism and internal gridlock.
I supported the recall, because democracy must be stress-tested. Institutions must enable mid-term accountability. When elected officials undermine defense, invite foreign influence or erode checks and balances, citizens need recourse.
Recalls carry risks — division, populism and distrust — but with reform and civic education, they can bolster democratic resilience.
This recall is not the end, but a beginning. Taiwan’s next challenge is turning this political awakening into lasting reform and democratic renewal in the face of authoritarian threats.
(Bonnie Yushih Liao is an assistant professor at Tamkang University.)
大罷免運動：民主壓力測試
作者：廖雨詩
「大罷免」運動——針對31名立委，佔立法院議員總數的四分之一以上——標誌著台灣憲政史上的一個里程碑。雖然罷免結果或許並未改變議會權力，但這場運動的體制、社會和地緣政治影響凸顯了台灣民主發展的關鍵轉捩點。
多年來，台灣的罷免制度在很大程度上只是像徵性的——受制於高門檻和組織障礙。此次罷免嘗試打破了這個模式。它表明，公民意識日益增強，對四年一度選舉之外的問責制的需求也日益增長。公民利用憲法工具來表達對立法者行為的不滿，尤其是那些被視為不民主或違背國家利益的行為。
這場運動針對的是中國國民黨及其盟友反對派立委，其本身並非單純的黨派之爭，而是對一些失靈現象的回應：預算受阻、罷免總理的企圖以及單方面權力攫取。它也標誌著評判標準從基於候選人轉向基於行為。
罷免也是為了抵禦中國的影響。被視為與北京結盟的立委在選舉中遭遇了強烈抵制。其傳遞的訊息很明確：台灣的主權和民主不容談判。
更重要的是，根植於民族認同的兩極化正在加深。罷免的支持者和反對者並非以黨派界線為分界線，而是以對中國、改革和主權的立場為分界線。
媒體動態加劇了這種分裂。中國的假訊息、社群媒體的回音室效應和黨派言論助長了「我們對抗他們」的心態。呼籲變成了道德訴求：「如果你支持這位立委，你就不愛台灣。」這種框架排擠了溫和派，阻礙了中間派的參與，反而助長了被動員起來的極端分子。
儘管罷免案最終失敗，但它留下了政治影響。立法者則更加謹慎，尤其是在國防、中國和憲法改革等議題上。
同時，立法院的道德權威被削弱。如果許多立法者被認為脫離民意，立法院就有可能失去製度公信力。這為行政部門提供了發展空間。
這也可能促使更廣泛的改革——遏制立法濫用，並明確關於不信任投票或程序越權的規則。罷免案可能為修改憲法或立法條款以恢復平衡鋪路。
罷免案是一項高風險但至關重要的民主工具。它考驗著制度的強度、公民社會的參與以及分裂社會推行改革的能力。參與程度表明，這場運動並非由黨派之爭驅動，而是由對問責制的信念以及在威權壓力下的韌性所驅動。
北京密切關注著。成功的罷免將顯示台灣人民能夠拒絕傾向統一的政客。然而，如果罷免失敗，中國就會指責執政黨濫用了民主工具。
對美國和其他民主夥伴來說，這傳遞了一個複雜的訊息。它肯定了台灣公民的活力，但也引發了對兩極化、民粹主義和內部僵局的擔憂。
我支持罷免，因為民主必須經受壓力考驗。各機構必須實現中期問責。當民選官員破壞國防、引入外國勢力或削弱制衡時，公民需要尋求幫助。
罷免會帶來風險——分裂、民粹主義和不信任——但透過改革和公民教育，罷免可以增強民主的韌性。
這次罷免不是結束，而是一個開始。台灣的下一個挑戰是將這場政治覺醒轉化為持久的改革和民主復興，以回應威權主義的威脅。
(廖雨詩是淡江大學助理教授)
