Written by Jonathan Leung.
Image credit: 2025.06.21 「北北基反惡罷團結大會」 26 by KOKUYO/ Wikimedia Commons, license: CC BY-SA 4.0.
Preface: Recall Elections in Taiwan and the 2025 Mass Recall Campaign
2025 is not a quiet year for Taiwan as the island is experiencing a large-scale and wide-ranging recall election, making the year busier between the years of central (2024) and local (2026) elections. A large number of legislators and various local officials had to face a voting test by their constituents just one year after returning to the office, making 2025 the year of the largest recall election campaign in Taiwan’s political history. Most of the elections were scheduled on July 26 and August 23.
As William Lai was elected as president in 2024, the Democratic Progressive Party won their third consecutive term of office. Yet, they lost control of the parliament as the Chinese Nationalist Party became the largest party and together with the Taiwan People’s Party, the oppositions hold the majority in the Legislative Yuan. The two opposition parties passed laws that were unfavourable to the DPP and expanded the power of the parliament, resulting in the strong inferiority and resentment of the DPP. With the support of Ker Chien-ming, the DPP caucus leader, civil groups which launched the Bluebird Movement started petitions in the KMT-held districts, attempting to recall the pan-blue legislators. At the same time, the KMT launched a counter-recall campaign targeting pan-green legislators.
A recall election is part of a social movement and direct civil participation in politics. According to the constitution of the Republic of China, voters of respective constituencies can recall their representatives during their term in office if they find their representative disappointing. This includes the president, legislators, mayors, magistrates and local councillors. This system, in a sense, reminds elected officials to abide by their election promises and behave lawfully.
Although there have been numerous recall elections in the past in Taiwan, it has become a culture and popular political strategy for all sides in recent years. KMT Kaohsiung Mayor Han Kuo-yu was recalled in 2020 as he was accused of slinking away to run for the presidential election just half a year after he had started his mayoralty; DPP Taoyuan councillor Wang Hau-yu was recalled in 2021 as he had made too many controversial speeches publicly; Taiwan Statebuilding Party legislator Chen Po-wei was recalled in 2021 as well. Yet, recall elections have become more and more common in the politics of Taiwan; in another sense, it has become a new political strategy to gather supporters, test the public’s opinion and crack their political opponents. Politicians from both sides, the media and the public oversimplify the recall campaign as a confrontation of political powers, even cross-strait relations and ‘pro-China’ issues. This article does not discuss whether these recall elections should be adopted or vetoed, but the hidden agenda and essence of the campaign, as well as a different way of institutional and theoretical understanding of the nature of the campaign itself.
Referendum and Snap Election: Institutional Implications of the Mass Recall Campaign
The system of recalling elected officials is to prevent them from breaking their election promises, committing illegal activities and conducting severe misbehaviours, namely corruption, money laundering, treason and other forms of crime, as legislators can be exempted from being arrested to a certain extent for certain crimes. An establishment of a recall campaign should target a particular person’s controversies instead of a group of people. The wide range of victims covers different political parties, including both the KMT and DPP in the past. As mentioned, some recall elections were successful. Yet, a lot of them were vetoed, namely the then New Power Party legislator Huang Kuo-chang in 2017, independent legislator Freddy Lim in 2022 and KMT Keelung Mayor George Hsieh in 2024. Some of the recalling campaigns were launched due to their behavioural controversies, and some might only be ‘mobilisation of hatred’. Regardless, the recall elections in the past were mostly individual, regardless of whether the victim was of whichever political affiliation.
Speaking of recalling nearly every single legislator from the geographical constituencies, or recalling legislators who belong to the same party, does not qualify to be considered as a normal recall campaign. Instead, it is a de facto referendum without discussing any public policies; Or in a more progressive interpretation, it should be understood as a snap election. 24 KMT legislators and independent (former TPP) Hsinchu mayor Ann Kao went through the recall elections on July 26, and 7 other KMT legislators will undergo their test on August 23.
The 2025 mass recall campaign is an attempt to overthrow the legislative election result in 2024. Like other democracies, Taiwan’s officials have a four-year term in office, and the central election was just conducted a year ago. Disqualifying an individual who has conducted undesirable behaviour is still understandable. It qualifies the meaning of a recall election, but disqualifying every representative of a party should be seen in another way – the party should be gunned down, and it does not deserve to have a single representative. The target is at the party itself, but not the person, resulting in the whole group of people being petitioned to disqualify. Therefore, this is designed to be a referendum on the people’s trust and opinion towards the performance or political ideologies of the KMT instead of their individual legislators’ behaviour. And the plebiscite question is crystal clear – should the KMT be extinct from the parliament?
A mass recall campaign is also a form of snap election. The 2025 campaign is not even close to half of the legislators’ term; however, 31 out of 73 of the geographical constituencies have to experience a recall election just a year after their representatives returned to the legislature. Although all of the current elections were rejected, the campaign still poses a chance of a by-election if any of them are passed. In other words, the sole purpose of the campaign is the DPP‘s desire to plunder some of the seats from the KMT to regain control of the parliament. Just like the UK, the ruling party will dissolve the House of Commons before the five-year term is up, hoping to gain more seats to secure a majority in the parliament through a snap election. As Taiwan is not running a parliamentary system, only the president can dissolve the Legislative Yuan, but only in critical moments like when the Executive Yuan is impeached or martial law is declared. The mass recall campaign can also be seen as a snap election initiated by the ruling party attempting to regain control of the Legislative Yuan, but not a full-scale one. Cooperating with the civic groups, the DPP targeted the KMT districts and wanted to acquire some seats to regain parliamentary control.
Adopt or Veto: A Different Election Ballot
Although the cast of ballots can be oversimplified as a blue-green confrontation or just another normal election campaign, the meaning it carries is far beyond. Some recall elections have been conducted, and the rest will come soon. None of the first wave of recall elections in July was adopted. The ballot paper carries a deeper message than its own.
Constituents voting for the motion can simply be understood as haters of the KMT, or they are just pan-green supporters; their ballots never belong to the blues in the general elections. Yet, constituents voting against might not be simply a pan-blue, or just a personal supporter of the KMT legislator. Disagreeing with the recall campaign does not make them immediate supporters of the KMT; this can also be interpreted as defenders of the institution. A recall election should be a system of revoking an official due to their serious misconduct, but not escalating to the whole party. Otherwise, this will be a campaign of eradicating a political party instead of discussing an individual’s misconduct, which violates the original intention of the recall system.
A mass recall campaign is also a delegitimisation of democracy and derecognition of the previous election results. Unlike most democracies, an individual legislator can be dismissed if a supermajority (67% in most cases) of the parliament votes for it. Taiwan’s recall election is conducted in the concerned person’s constituency; only the constituents can decide the fate. The crux of the issue is, hypothetically, suppose that the mass recall campaign is successful, the constituents should be blamed for triggering everything. When they cast the ballot a year ago in the general election, they should have fully examined the candidates before delivering their mandate. Ballots were still cast, given that voters understand the candidate’s conduct and manifesto. The campaign is thus a disrespect towards the constituents’ ballots and their decision, turning the general election and the democratic institution into a joke.
Constituents should be responsible for their decision in every election. Hijacking ‘democracy’ and ‘anti-China’ as sticking points to launch the campaign is actually harming and weakening democracy itself. The nature of the campaign is encouraging the derecognition and delegitimisation of the previous election result, as advocates were not targeting an individual’s misconduct. Taiwan is proud to be a robust democracy in the world and is trying to be a model in East Asia. First and foremost is to respect election results and procedural justice. Petition for forming a recall campaign is not difficult, as only 10% of the constituents are required. In each constituency, gathering 10% of the voters who are against the person in office is indeed very easy. Yet, while most of these constituencies are of pan-blue safe seats, it is unnecessary and meaningless to launch the campaign. All rejected recall elections do not mean that the majority of the public supports the KMT, as these elections were only conducted in their own constituencies. The DPP always keeps a majority of support ratings in the opinion polls and is even higher than the sum of supporters of the KMT and TPP in July 2025.
Therefore, there is no winner in this campaign. The KMT did not lose any legislators as they were just campaigning in their safe seats; the DPP failed to knock down any of them to stand a chance of battling in the by-election. But one lesson for both sides to learn in Taiwan is that recognising election results and respecting procedural justice is essential to function as a robust and healthy democracy. The system of recall election should be used to revoke incompetent and misconducted officials, but not as a political strategy.
Jonathan Leung is a history teacher in Hong Kong. He earned his Master’s degree in history at SOAS, University of London and his Bachelor’s degree in history at the University of Sheffield. His research focuses on the post-war political and social history of Taiwan. His research interests are situated in the life and decision-making of critical moments of prominent Taiwanese figures from a broad to a micro perspective. His research topics include the histories of power struggles, party politics, elections, democratisation, social movements and institutional changes. He is now pursuing his Postgraduate Diploma in Education in History and Humanities at the Hong Kong Baptist University.
This article was published as part of a special issue on ‘Recall elections: Practice or problem for Taiwan’s democracy?‘.
Taiwan Insight 
