
‘Great Recall': Taiwan's Democratic Experiment
The modern form of recall, in which citizens collect signatures to hold a kind of referendum on whether an elected official should be removed from office, was created in Switzerland in the 19th century and adopted in many U.S. states in the early 20th century, as part of a wave of reforms to combat corruption in politics.
One admirer of the concept was Sun Yat-sen, founding father of the Republic of China. Trying to create a constitutional government from scratch, he listed recalls alongside elections and referenda as core elements of his principle of popular sovereignty. In due course, these rights were enshrined in the first Constitution of the ROC, adopted in 1947, which was brought to Taiwan after World War II.
Recalls have thus been a part of the political landscape for Taiwanese people for decades, memorably internalized in the discourse by the fact that Taiwan's election law is always referred to as the 'Election and Recall Law' (選罷法). But recalls have been used only sporadically, as indeed they usually are in other countries.
The reason is simple enough: voters anywhere generally resent being told that they made a mistake, and they generally prefer not to have more elections and campaigning than necessary. Therefore, mainstream politicians tend to hesitate to reach for this mechanism, for fear of public backlash, and even activist gadflies usually decide that the low rate of success would not justify the effort.
So what explains the current 'Great Recall' in Taiwan?
Voters in January 2024 delivered a divided government, with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) retaining the presidency but losing its legislative majority. The Kuomintang (KMT) won a slight plurality of the 113 seats, then managed to form a majority through an alliance with the smaller Taiwan People's Party (TPP), which had won eight seats, all from the nationwide party list ballot.
Taiwan has lived with divided government before. Voters around the world sometimes prefer this arrangement, hoping it will force parties to cooperate. However, since it can easily lead to gridlock, various mechanisms are needed to cope with such situations. In Taiwan, as in many other countries, the most important of these is the Constitutional Court.
After taking office on February 1, 2024, the new KMT-TPP majority moved quickly to enact a series of controversial measures. One of the earliest was a package of laws expanding the legislature's own powers. These sparked public backlash, culminating in the 'BlueBird' protest movement led by civil society. The KMT and TPP rushed the legislation through anyway. The government responded by referring the package to the Constitutional Court, which later in 2024 struck down the most controversial parts of the package. This was the system working normally.
However, the KMT-TPP majority also decided to launch an attack on the Constitutional Court itself, quickly passing a measure to effectively prevent any further constitutional interpretations, removing this crucial mechanism for addressing gridlock. At the same time, the majority also enacted sweeping cuts to the annual budget, most notably cutting or freezing critical national security expenditures.
Combined with the overt liaisons with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) during this period – notably the meeting in April between the KMT caucus leader Fu Kun-chi and Wang Huning, the fourth-ranked CCP leader – a sense of national crisis emerged. Many Taiwanese began to worry that their democracy was being weakened at the behest of Beijing.
In response, citizens mobilized to take matters into their own hands. As repeated protests had hardly slowed down the pace of legislation, they turned to the recall mechanism. Originally the movement targeted Fu and the most controversial members of the caucus, to punish them as individuals. But it spread like wildfire throughout the country, as the idea took hold that the KMT caucus as a whole should be punished by eliminating its majority.
Recall efforts were launched against all 37 district members of the KMT (recalls are impossible to use against members elected from the nationwide party lists, thus sparing the TPP). Two stumbled right away at the first stage of signature collection, and four more failed at the more difficult second stage. With five more still under review, recall ballots may be held in as many as 31 districts total: 24 on July 26, plus between two and seven afterwards.
The signature collection campaigns themselves were impressive. Using almost all unpaid volunteers, over a million signatures were collected across the country in the 60 days allowed. The movement was backed by a flowering of cultural creativity. For example, after a KMT legislator disparaged Taiwan's film industry (while the legislative majority was cutting budgets for its support), over 100 filmmakers forged an alliance that produced a series of short films explaining why citizens should support the recall.
It is not easy to assess how many of the recalls will pass. It is even more difficult to determine whether the legislative majority will actually change hands. Even in cases where recalls are successful, by-elections will need to be held, and alternative candidates from the KMT might well be able to hold the seats.
Nonetheless, the 'Great Recall' can already be considered a success. It has provided a platform for citizens to concretely express their displeasure at the performance of the Legislative Yuan. The heightening of citizen awareness of the dangers of foreign influence and the experience of taking direct action against politicians will act as a deterrent against future bad behavior.
In short, the 2025 'Great Recall' is bringing Taiwan's democracy to the next level. Taiwanese society, by its own efforts, is enhancing its political resilience against the manifold threats posed by the CCP. This can only be welcomed by Taiwan's friends in the international community, and indeed friends of democracy anywhere.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Mainichi
a day ago
- The Mainichi
Japan right-wing party Sanseito's talk of prewar imperial rescript in teaching stirs unease
TOKYO -- The right-wing populist party Sanseito, which gained seats in the July 20 House of Councillors election, has quietly stirred waves in Japan's education sector by advocating "respect for the Imperial Rescript on Education." The Imperial Rescript on Education, issued in 1890 by Emperor Meiji, outlined the virtues that the "subjects" of the Japanese Empire were expected to uphold. It served as the spiritual backbone of national education, and its recitation was compulsory in Japanese schools before World War II. After Japan's defeat in the war and the promulgation of a new Constitution that established sovereignty of the people, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution abolishing the Imperial Rescript on Education on the grounds that it undermined fundamental human rights based on its concepts of the rule of a sovereign and a mythological national structure, and the House of Councillors passed a resolution confirming its invalidity. For a long time after the war, it was regarded in educational circles as a taboo educational philosophy. However, Sanseito has proposed its own constitutional draft stating that "the Imperial Rescript on Education and other historical imperial edicts must be respected in education," though it remains unclear whether this could actually be carried out. At a press conference on July 22 following the election results, Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Toshiko Abe countered the idea, stating, "It is unacceptable to use the Imperial Rescript on Education in ways that contradict the Constitution and the Basic Act on Education." It is unlikely that the current administration would revive such an approach either. Nevertheless, there are growing concerns within the education ministry. "There is a very strong sense of crisis. I don't want to believe that voters understood such extreme claims when they voted ..." said one official, expressing caution regarding a passage from the "New Japanese Constitution (draft)" published on Sanseito's website. In its public pledge, Sanseito proposes the "abolition of managed education focusing on deviation scores." It also promises appealing measures such as "expansion of scholarships," "development of educational environments that cater to individuality," and "improvement of compensation packages for teachers." On the other hand, Article 9, Section 4 of its proposal states: "The Imperial Rescript on Education, historical imperial edicts, patriotism, food and health, regional festivals and great figures, and traditional events must be respected in education." Similar instances have occurred in the past. In 2006, the first administration of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe revised the Basic Act on Education to include a new objective of "fostering the value of respect for tradition and culture and love of the country and regions that have nurtured us," which drew criticism. Under the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) government, moral aspects like filial piety and family love have often been emphasized, and the appropriateness of incorporating such aspects in educational materials has become an issue. The issue is not limited to Sanseito; there are also a considerable number of people within the LDP's right wing who share similar views. The aforementioned ministry official remarked, "It's hard to imagine that the increase in Sanseito's seats will immediately lead to discussions in the Diet about reviving the Imperial Rescript on Education, but Sanseito might claim that since they have increased their seats they have gained public support, including for their constitutional proposal." In upcoming sessions of the Diet, important educational bills, such as the tuition-free policy for private high schools, the introduction of digital textbooks, and the promotion of 35-student classes in junior high schools, are expected to be deliberated. It remains to be seen whether there will be room for Sanseito's proposals in these discussions. A mid-level official at the ministry views some of Sanseito's claims as having an element of agitation, noting, "It's uncertain how far they intend to go in implementing them as policies." However, the official added, "There is a need to closely monitor whether changes in the political power balance will lead to educational policies being used as bargaining chips."


Japan Today
a day ago
- Japan Today
Zelenskyy wins EU, NATO backing as he seeks place at Trump-Putin talks
A serviceman of the 115th Separate Mechanized Brigade of the Ukrainian Armed Forces attends a training between combat missions at a training ground, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in Kharkiv region, Ukraine August 9, 2025. REUTERS/Sofiia Gatilova By Dan Peleschuk and Mark Trevelyan Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy won diplomatic backing from Europe and the NATO alliance on Sunday ahead of a Russia-U.S. summit this week where Kyiv fears President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump may try to dictate terms for ending the 3-1/2-year war. Trump, who for weeks had been threatening new sanctions against Russia for failing to halt the war, announced instead on Friday that he would meet Putin on August 15 in Alaska. A White House official has said Trump is open to Zelenskyy attending but preparations are underway for only a bilateral meeting. Russian strikes injured at least 12 in Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia region, the country's foreign affairs ministry said on Sunday. Zelenskyy, responding to the strike, said, "That is why sanctions are needed, pressure is needed." The Kremlin leader last week ruled out meeting Zelenskyy, saying conditions for such an encounter were "unfortunately still far" from being met. Trump said a potential deal would involve "some swapping of territories to the betterment of both (sides)", compounding Ukrainian fears that it may face pressure to surrender land. Zelenskyy says any decisions taken without Ukraine will be "stillborn" and unworkable. On Saturday the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Finland and the European Commission said any diplomatic solution must protect the security interests of Ukraine and Europe. "The U.S. has the power to force Russia to negotiate seriously," EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said on Sunday. "Any deal between the U.S. and Russia must have Ukraine and the EU included, for it is a matter of Ukraine's and the whole of Europe's security." EU foreign ministers will meet on Monday to discuss next steps, she said. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte told U.S. network ABC News that Friday's summit "will be about testing Putin, how serious he is on bringing this terrible war to an end". He added: "It will be, of course, about security guarantees, but also about the absolute need to acknowledge that Ukraine decides on its own future, that Ukraine has to be a sovereign nation, deciding on its own geopolitical future." Russia holds nearly a fifth of the country. Rutte said a deal could not include legal recognition of Russian control over Ukrainian land, although it might include de facto recognition. He compared it to the situation after World War II when Washington accepted that the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were de facto controlled by the Soviet Union but did not legally recognize their annexation. Zelenskyy said on Sunday: "The end of the war must be fair, and I am grateful to everyone who stands with Ukraine and our people today." A European official said Europe had come up with a counter-proposal to Trump's, but declined to provide details. Russian officials accused Europe of trying to thwart Trump's efforts to end the war. "The Euro-imbeciles are trying to prevent American efforts to help resolve the Ukrainian conflict," former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev posted on social media on Sunday. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in a vituperative statement that the relationship between Ukraine and the European Union resembled "necrophilia". Roman Alekhin, a Russian war blogger, said Europe had been reduced to the role of a spectator. "If Putin and Trump reach an agreement directly, Europe will be faced with a fait accompli. Kyiv - even more so," he said. CAPTURED TERRITORY In addition to Crimea, which it seized in 2014, Russia has formally claimed the Ukrainian regions of Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia as its own, although it controls only about 70% of the last three. It holds smaller pieces of territory in three other regions, while Ukraine says it holds a sliver of Russia's Kursk region. Sergei Markov, a pro-Kremlin analyst, said a swap could entail Russia handing over 1,500 sq km to Ukraine and obtaining 7,000 sq km, which he said Russia would capture anyway within about six months. He provided no evidence to back any of those figures. Russia took about 500 sq km of territory in July, according to Western military analysts who say its grinding advances have come at the cost of very high casualties. Ukraine and its European allies have been haunted for months by the fear that Trump, keen to claim credit for making peace and hoping to seal lucrative joint business deals between the U.S. and Russia, could align with Putin to cut a deal that would be deeply disadvantageous to Kyiv. They had drawn some encouragement lately as Trump, having piled heavy pressure on Zelenskyy and berated him publicly in the Oval Office in February, began criticizing Putin as Russia pounded Kyiv and other cities with its heaviest air attacks of the war. But the impending Putin-Trump summit has revived fears that Kyiv and Europe could be sidelined. "What we will see emerge from Alaska will almost certainly be a catastrophe for Ukraine and Europe," wrote Phillips P. O'Brien, professor of strategic studies at the University of St Andrews in Scotland. "And Ukraine will face the most terrible dilemma. Do they accept this humiliating and destructive deal? Or do they go it alone, unsure of the backing of European states?" Ukrainian political analyst Volodymyr Fesenko said on Sunday that Kyiv's partnership with its European allies was critical to countering any attempts to keep it away from the table. "For us right now, a joint position with the Europeans is our main resource," he said on Ukrainian radio. U.S. Vice President JD Vance said a negotiated settlement was unlikely to satisfy either side. "Both the Russians and the Ukrainians, probably, at the end of the day, are going to be unhappy with it," he said on Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo. © Thomson Reuters 2025.


Yomiuri Shimbun
2 days ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Zelenskyy Rejects Formally Ceding Ukrainian Territory, Says Kyiv Must Be Part of Any Negotiations
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Saturday rejected the idea that his country would give up land to end the war with Russia after U.S. President Donald Trump suggested a peace deal could include 'some swapping of territories.' Zelenskyy said Ukraine 'will not give Russia any awards for what it has done' and that 'Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier.' Later Saturday, European and Ukrainian officials met with U.S. Vice President JD Vance in England to discuss how to end the more than three-year war. The talks came after Trump said he would meet with Vladimir Putin even if the Russian leader would not meet with Zelenskyy. Representatives from the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Finland and Poland attended the meeting in Kent, Zelenskyy said in a post on X, calling the talks constructive. 'I have not heard any partners express doubts about America's ability to ensure that the war ends,' Zelenskyy said. 'The President of the United States has the levers and the determination.' Earlier in the day, Zelenskyy dismissed the planned Trump-Putin summit, scheduled for Friday in Alaska, warning that any negotiations to end Europe's biggest conflict since World War II must include Kyiv. 'Any decisions that are without Ukraine are at the same time decisions against peace. They will not bring anything. These are dead decisions. They will never work,' he said. Ukrainian officials previously told The Associated Press privately that Kyiv would be amenable to a peace deal that would de facto recognize Ukraine's inability to regain lost territories militarily. The Trump-Putin summit The Trump-Putin meeting may prove pivotal in a war that began when Russia invaded its western neighbor and has led to tens of thousands of deaths, although there's no guarantee it will stop the fighting since Moscow and Kyiv remain far apart on their conditions for peace. 'It seems entirely logical for our delegation to fly across the Bering Strait simply, and for such an important and anticipated summit of the leaders of the two countries to be held in Alaska,' Putin's foreign affairs adviser, Yuri Ushakov, said Saturday in a statement posted to the Kremlin's news channel. The president of the European Union and leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Finland and the UK issued a joint statement late Saturday in support of Ukraine and ending the war. 'We are convinced that only an approach that combines active diplomacy, support to Ukraine and pressure on the Russian Federation to end their illegal war can succeed,' the statement said. In his comments at the White House Friday, Trump gave no details on the 'swapping of territories.' Analysts, including some close to the Kremlin, have suggested that Russia could offer to give up territory it controls outside of the four regions it claims to have annexed. Trump said his meeting with Putin would come before any sit-down discussion involving Zelenskyy. His announcement that he planned to host one of America's adversaries on U.S. soil broke with expectations that they'd meet in a third country. Nigel Gould-Davies, a senior fellow for Russia and Eurasia at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, told the AP that the 'symbology' of holding the summit in Alaska was clear and that the location 'naturally favors Russia.' 'It's easy to imagine Putin making the point. … We once had this territory and we gave it to you, therefore Ukraine had this territory and now should give it to us,' he said, referring to the 1867 transaction known as the Alaska Purchase when Russia sold Alaska to the United States for $7.2 million. Reactions in Kyiv On the streets of Kyiv, reactions to the idea of Ukraine ceding territory to Russia ranged from skepticism to quiet resignation. 'It may not be capitulation, but it would be a loss,' said Ihor Usatenko, a 67-year-old pensioner, who said he would consider ceding territory 'on condition for compensation and, possibly, some reparations.' Anastasia Yemelianova, 31, said she was torn: 'Honestly, I have two answers to that question. The first is as a person who loves her country. I don't want to compromise within myself,' she told the AP. 'But seeing all these deaths and knowing that my mother is now living in Nikopol under shelling and my father is fighting, I want all this to end as soon as possible.' Svitlana Dobrynska, whose son died fighting, rejected outright concessions but supported halting combat to save lives. 'We don't have the opportunity to launch an offensive to recapture our territories,' the 57-year-old pensioner said, 'But to prevent people from dying, we can simply stop military operations, sign some kind of agreement, but not give up our territories.' Ultimatums and sanctions Before Trump announced the summit, his efforts to pressure Russia to stop the fighting had delivered no progress. Trump had moved up an ultimatum to impose additional sanctions on Russia and introduce secondary tariffs targeting countries that buy Russian oil if the Kremlin did not move toward a settlement. The deadline was Friday. The White House did not answer questions Saturday about possible sanctions. The Kremlin's bigger army is slowly advancing deeper into Ukraine at great cost in troops and armor while it relentlessly bombards Ukrainian cities. Russia and Ukraine trade attacks On Saturday, two people died and 16 were wounded when a Russian drone hit a minibus in the suburbs of the Ukrainian city of Kherson, regional Gov. Oleksandr Prokudin said. Two others died after a Russian drone struck their car in the Zaporizhzhia region, according to regional Gov. Ivan Fedorov. Ukraine's air force said it intercepted 16 of the 47 Russian drones launched overnight, while 31 drones hit targets across 15 different locations. It also said it shot down one of the two missiles Russia deployed. Russia's Defense Ministry said its air defenses shot down 97 Ukrainian drones over Russia and the Black Sea overnight and 21 more Saturday morning.