Aleksandrs Grossby Aleksandrs Gross
語言:
English
Photo Credit: KOKUYO/WikiCommons/CC BY-SA 4.0
THE GREAT RECALL MOVEMENT saw the rise of many competing narratives about the aims of the movement. The two most dominant narratives surrounding the recalls are as follows:
Pro-recallers: Those in support of the recalls saw them as a means to check the unconstitutional power-grab tactics of the KMT-TPP alliance, and, by extension, resist CCP influence in Taiwanese politics.
Anti-recallers: Those who opposed the recalls saw them as a DPP-initiated party battle targeting KMT politicians. The DPP was seen as manipulating public sentiment against the KMT to recall them from office and regain a legislative majority, which it lost in the last elections.
Going beyond popular narratives is crucial in understanding the voting decisions of Taiwanese citizens, and by extension, understanding what the recall failure means (and does not mean). To assess the views of anti-recallers, I conducted an anonymous online survey.
After determining the relevant background information of respondents— their political leaning (DPP, KMT, TPP, or neither/neutral), approximate age, county of registration—I used a Likert scale to determine how strongly they opposed the recalls and how satisfied they were with the performance of the Legislative Yuan. I followed this with some open-ended questions, querying more in-depth views of respondents.
More specifically, I asked what respondents thought was driving the recalls (public dissatisfaction or top-down party manipulation), what they thought about recall messaging, why they opposed the recalls, why they think the recalls failed, and how the recalls affected their view of Taiwanese society.
Participants were recruited mainly through convenience sampling via Taiwanese friend networks of the author and through several Facebook groups: 台灣人在荷蘭, 韓國瑜🇹🇼救台灣🇹🇼護民主讚(請加入）,台灣人在澳洲 Taiwanese in Australia, 台灣民眾黨 粉絲後援會總部. This was followed by snowball sampling as respondents and their contacts shared the survey link. Responses for the survey were collected between the 21st of August and the 11th of September.
The original survey and respondent answers were in Mandarin Chinese, but were translated into English for this article.
Profile of Respondents
BEFORE ANALYZING responses to individual questions, some basic information about respondents will be provided. Respectively, of all respondents, 27% were 25-34 y/o; 22% were 65-74 y/o; 20% were 35-44 y/o; 17% were 55-64 y/o; and 15% were 45-54 y/o. The majority of respondents were over 44 years old.
As regards political affiliation, of all respondents, 54% were independent, 32% were KMT supporters, 10% were TPP supporters, 2.5% were DPP supporters, and 2.5% preferred not to disclose their political leaning.
As regards the degree to which respondents opposed the recalls, 73% strongly opposed the recalls, 20% opposed the recalls, and 7% of responses indicated that they were strongly against the recalls, but given that these same people indicated that they were against the recalls in all other questions, it can be assumed that they misunderstood the question.
As regards degree of satisfaction with the performance of the current Legislative Yuan, 37% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 29% were very satisfied, 20% were satisfied, 10% were dissatisfied, and 7% were very dissatisfied.
Responses
Who was Behind the Recalls: Civil Society or DPP Political Actors?
ORIGINAL SURVEY question: In your perception, what was behind the recalls? Were they driven more by party politics or by genuine public dissatisfaction? Could you go into detail on why you think it was one more so than the other?
Anti-recallers were almost unanimous in their understanding of the recalls as a DPP-initiated party battle. Of the 41 comments, only five give some credit to genuine public dissatisfaction – and most of these do not see public dissatisfaction as playing a major role in the recalls. See comments:
80% party maneuvering, 20% genuine citizen-driven. But even the citizen-driven part largely stems from party maneuvering.
In my view, the DPP successfully manipulated some citizens’ emotions, making them quickly believe the recalled legislators were about to sell out Taiwan. I don’t think mainstream public opinion was dissatisfied—the voting results show that. And from what I see, the recall groups didn’t act after the legislators had served a while and done something concrete; they started as soon as legally possible. To me, it was clearly initiated by voters who already disliked these legislators from the start.
The remaining 31 comments expressed strong confidence that the DPP was behind the recalls. See comments:
In my view, it was party maneuvering. It feels like if you don’t support the DPP, you’ll be labeled a CCP collaborator. This phenomenon has been happening more frequently in recent years, and it feels terrible.
The DPP does not accept being a minority in the legislature and wanted to overturn the situation through mass recalls. Simply put: they lost the election, don’t admit defeat, and want to use political maneuvers to reverse the outcome.
Given that most anti-recallers believed that the recalls were a DPP-initiated party battle, the deeper issue behind the recalls – CCP interference in Taiwanese politics – was sidelined. The results of the recalls have less to say about the attitude of Taiwanese towards CCP interference and more to say about the popularity of the DPP in deep-blue voting districts.
Why Did You Oppose the Recalls?
THERE WERE A variety of reasons respondents brought up in validating their opposition to the recalls. The three most prominent reasons were DPP abuse of democracy, partisan struggle, and inadequate justification. More detailed explanations follow:
- Respondents thought the recalls were undermining democracy and disrespecting the results of the last legislative elections.
Terms are fixed; if there are violations or illegal acts, there will naturally be punishment. If the opposition performs well, the ballots will speak next time. Spending energy on this is really unnecessary.
The recall groups do not respect the results of the 2024 election.
- The recalls were seen as a DPP-initiated party battle, sidelining national interest in favor of partisan struggle.
The legislators proposed for recall were not performing poorly. It’s only because the DPP is in the minority in the legislature (the result of last year’s election), and to take back the majority, they abused the recall mechanism — this is not how a democratic country should act.
The recalls aren’t unreasonable per se, but these legislators should first be given time to perform, and then we can judge whether they are unfit. They had only just taken office when recalls started. (Even if that’s not the intent) it makes people feel the DPP is just a sore loser, trying to borrow a knife to kill.
- The recalls were seen as lacking real justification, trying to remove popularly elected politicians using flimsy reasons.
These excellent legislators were elected vote by vote by so many of us. They haven’t done anything wrong; they are overseeing the government for us. Why should they be recalled? Of course I oppose it!
More generally, respondents saw the DPP as manipulating public opinion to target the KMT and regain their previously held majority of the Legislative Yuan. To this end, the DPP was seen as abusing democracy for personal gain, wasting national resources, and causing divisions in society. Respondents did not see the performance of KMT or TPP politicians as necessitating recalls, and, in fact, were satisfied with their performance.
What Did You Think About the Messaging of the Recalls?
ORIGINAL SURVEY question: What did you think about the messaging of the recalls? How personally relevant / convincing did you find it?
Given that most anti-recallers thought the recalls were a DPP-initiated party battle, it comes as no surprise that 39 responses clearly indicated that the messaging around the recalls was not persuasive. Two responses to this question were unclear and not taken into analysis.
It feels like a replay of the Cultural Revolution’s Red Guards. On the surface, the recall is about resisting China and protecting Taiwan, but in reality, it’s about restoring the DPP’s legislative majority. I really cannot agree with it.
For me, extremely unconvincing. They drag everything into “resist China, protect Taiwan,” but provide no concrete evidence.
The mass recall violates the principles of democratic politics.
Only three responses acknowledge that parts of the messaging were reasonable.
I think the main demand of recall supporters (to stop blue-white legislators from pushing controversial bills and cutting budgets with their majority) is simply the reality of a minority government. I disagree with some of those bills, but that doesn’t mean they have no value. Nor should all KMT legislators be labeled pro-China just because of different views. So I don’t think the recall supporters’ demands are persuasive.
Anti-recallers finding the messaging unconvincing may have a variety of explanations. For one, it may be that the content of the messaging failed to clearly address the concerns of anti-recall voters. Alternatively, it could be that the news sources anti-recallers were exposed to were hijacked by more extreme views, which obscured the real messaging of many activists.
Why Do You Think the Recalls Failed?
THE ANTI-RECALL CAMP interpreted the failure of the recall as coming from 1) lack of legitimate reason for recalls, 2) voter fatigue, and 3) opposition to DPP manipulation.
Firstly, the recalls were seen as lacking justification: as blindly targeting KMT politicians, resisting the outcome of the previous elections, and engaging in political struggle.
Partisan fighting is normal in Taiwan, but a blanket recall was unconvincing and very disruptive.
Secondly, the recalls were framed as causing voter fatigue in going against the spirit of democracy, being disruptive, exhausting, or wasteful.
People were disgusted with parties manipulating public sentiment, dividing society, constantly consuming energy, and holding endless elections.
Thirdly, the DPP was portrayed as overreaching, pursuing dictatorship, and manipulating civic groups.
The recalls lacked legitimate reasons; double standards in judicial persecution blocked proposals to recall DPP legislators; the endless use of “resist China, protect Taiwan” was incomprehensible. These actions made people worry the DPP was backsliding on democracy, resembling the Communist Party of the past.
Less central reasons that were mentioned were the perceived extremism of recall activists, with hate speech, witch-hunting, labeling moderates as traitors, and harassment of citizens being given as examples.
“Bluebird” activists acted like witch-hunters on the street, even saying in chat groups that those opposing the recall should “go back to China.”
Anti-recallers saw the recall outcome as a check on what was perceived as a DPP effort to take back power that was lost in the last legislative election. Such views place the DPP’s ambitions at the center of the recalls – disregarding that they first originated in civic groups that took great measures to distance themselves from political parties.
Have the Recalls Affected Your View of Taiwanese Society? If Yes, in What Ways?
MOST RESPONDENTS report that the recalls further polarised Taiwanese society. The DPP was reflected in a very negative light, variously described as incompetent, manipulative, corrupt, fuelling division, and overusing “resist China/protect Taiwan” narratives. Indeed, some respondents went so far as to claim that voters were brainwashed and manipulated by propaganda.
From observing social movements in recent years, I see many people swayed by politicians’ manipulative propaganda, without the ability to judge for themselves.
The recall cases accelerated polarization and opposition, leaving no space for rational thought or communication.
Positive responses mainly reiterated a sense of relief that there are still many rational voters who successfully struck down the recalls. Accordingly, the failure of the recalls proved the strength of Taiwanese democracy.
I used to feel pessimistic about Taiwanese voters, thinking most would be misled by the media. But the election results proved people still have media literacy, which was reassuring.
The failure of the mass recalls shows the resilience of Taiwan’s democracy, and it may reshape the political landscape for years to come.
Conclusion
THE RESPONSES of anti-recall Taiwanese indicate that their perception of the recalls shared very little with the perception of pro-recall Taiwanese. Most notably, perceptions differed on the origin and aims of the movement.
If for pro-recallers they were about resisting a KMT-TPP power-grab of the legislature and Chinese interference, then for anti-recallers they were seen as a kind of DPP-led political retribution aimed at regaining a Legislative majority. Perceptions of origin were equally different – for pro-recallers, it was a bottom-up, civil society-led movement; for anti-recallers, it was a top-down political struggle, which co-opted civil society.
Hence, the recall results should not be interpreted as showing that Taiwan has suddenly become pro-China. Rather, the recall results show that a majority of Taiwanese are dissatisfied with the DPP. In their eyes, the recall was not about resisting Chinese interference, but about resisting what they perceived as a DPP-initiated political struggle. Both those for and against the recall were pro-Taiwan and pro-democracy, but each side interprets the threat to Taiwan and democracy differently.