Despite being almost universally considered the best form of government, democracy is not immune from periods of serious illness. According to a report by the Stockholm-based intergovernmental organisation the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, the foundations of democracy are weakening around the world: half of countries are experiencing democratic declines, ranging from tainted elections to restricted rights like the freedom of assembly and expression (International idea, 2023). The decline of official ‘checks and balances’—elections, parliaments, and courts—that have failed to enforce the law and hold politicians accountable has worsened the deterioration. This collapse coincides with significant challenges for elected officials posed by the cost-of-living crises, climate change, and Russia’s conflict with Ukraine. Drawing from 17 factors ranging from civil rights to judicial independence, almost half (85) of the 173 countries polled experienced a drop in at least one major indicator of democratic performance over the previous five years. The year 2022 was the sixth consecutive in which the number of countries experiencing net declines exceeded the number of those undergoing net increases. The reductions occur worldwide, from Canada to El Salvador and Hungary, South Korea to Benin and Brazil. Since also authoritarianism seems to be surging worldwide (Franceschini & Loubere, 2022), democracy faces significant challenges in contemporary times.

One noticeable exception is Taiwan, which, according to the 2022 Bertelsmann Transformation Index (bti) report, has ‘stable democratic institutions and a vibrant civil society, and does extremely well in guaranteeing its citizens’ political rights and civil liberties’, ranking third out of 137 countries in terms of political transformation (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2022). The research focuses, in particular, on Taiwan’s ‘regular, universal, and secret multiparty elections, which are usually undisputed and widely covered by the media’ (ibid., 3). In addition, the latest edition of the Freedom in the World report has maintained Taiwan’s status as a ‘free country’ (Freedom House, 2024). Taiwan obtained 94 out of 100 points, ranking second in Asia, only behind Japan. In particular, Taiwan’s scores were the same as the previous year: 38 out of 40 for political rights and 56 out of 60 for civil liberties. The report states that because Taiwan received flawless results in a number of the evaluated categories, it had managed to hold onto its status as a highly free nation. Taiwan is credited for its democratic system, which has allowed peaceful handovers of power on a regular basis since 2000, as well as for its generally strong civil liberties provisions. Nonetheless, the study states that concerns regarding migrant labour exploitation and Chinese government efforts to sway Taiwan’s democratic institutions, media, and governance still exist. Concerning recent events, the report mentions that tougher protections for victims of sexual harassment have been approved as a result of the local #MeToo movement that erupted in May 2023.

In 2001, speaking only a year after Taiwan’s first peaceful transition of power, Larry Diamond highlighted that, in a decade, the country had undergone a seamless and peaceful political transformation to become a comparatively liberal democracy that contrasted favourably to most of its ‘Third Wave’ counterparts (Diamond, 2001). Nevertheless, Diamond identified five major factors that harmed Taiwan’s democracy: corruption, weak formal institutions and the rule of law, partisan polarisation along ethnic and national identity lines, constitutional flaws such as a problematic electoral system, and an insufficient consolidation of democratic values among the general public. More recently, a contribution by Kharis Templeman determined that, while weaknesses remain, many of the reforms Diamond advocated for have witnessed significant progress (Templeman, 2022). In the last two decades, corruption, although not completely eradicated, has gradually declined, respect for the rule of law has improved and institutions have acquired increasing independence and legitimacy; disputes over national identity and ethnic differences have been largely overcome, a consensus over the political system and the constitutional structure has been reached, and democratic values have consolidated to the point that nowadays democracy appears to be ‘the only game in town’ (Di Palma, 1990: 113; Linz & Stepan, 1996: 5). Taiwan, a former authoritarian regime, has transformed into a robust, lively, and flourishing democracy by adopting democratic rights and ideals, as well as being open to democratic change and citizen-powered governance.

The whole picture is, of course, complicated by the political, military, and economic pressure exerted by Beijing, which considers Taipei a ‘renegade province’. After the breakdown of mutual relations between the two sides of the Strait, the People’s Republic of China pursued a double strategy of ‘carrot and stick’ towards Taiwan, on the one hand creating incentives for Taiwanese companies to invest in mainland China, while, on the other hand, sending warships and fighter jets to intrude into Taiwan’s waters and airspace, restricting Taipei’s international scope and wielding influence on Taiwanese media. Nonetheless, Taiwan’s democracy has proved resilient: by defence spending, approving and enforcing laws against Chinese influence on media and politics, and reducing economic dependence on Beijing through the strengthening of relations with other democracies, such as the United States and Japan, or international institutions, such as the European Union, Taipei proved successful in safeguarding the democratic character of its political regime. Nevertheless, Taiwan’s foreign relations are undergoing a dramatic phase, as in recent years, official diplomatic ties have been confined to a narrower number of partners. In 2014, 22 countries recognised Taiwan as a sovereign state; a decade later, only 12 maintained official diplomatic relations.¹

Though mature and full-fledged, Taiwan’s democracy faces several challenges arising from the international and domestic environments. Present times illuminate the connection between such factors terrifically, emphasising the singular contradiction whereby an increasingly consolidated democracy, such as Taiwan, faces a growing number of threats. Against this backdrop, the need for further investigation and scholarly research on the significance and implications of such challenges appears all the more urgent. It is with this spirit that this topical section was imagined, designed, and fulfilled.

The contributions in this topical section provide opportunities to delve into factors and processes representing a source of concern for the future of Taiwan’s democracy. Conducting their research with methodological accuracy, the authors featured in this topical section significantly contribute to understanding the diverse and key challenges affecting Taiwanese democracy. In his study on ‘Populist discourses in Taiwan and the case of Han Kuo-yu’, Frédéric Krumbein reflects on the recent spread of populist sentiments and the concurrent rise of populist groups and politicians in Taiwan’s political arena and institutional context. Turning to Han Kuo-yu as ‘the most prominent example of a populist politician’ in the Taiwanese political landscape, the author investigates populism in Taiwan more broadly, underlining that several pivotal factors make Taipei resilient vis-à-vis populism, much like other mature democratic regimes. Racialisation, discrimination, and their echo on digital and social media platforms are at the core of Isabel Cockel’s article, ‘“They will shoot you to a pulp!” The racialisation of migrant workers in the emotive cyberspace of ptt’. Focusing on public reactions to the killing of an undocumented migrant worker living in Taiwan by the police, the author concludes that migrant workers are frequently seen as ‘a disposable commodity’ and an ‘inferior ethnic other’. Cockel goes further to highlight that, though such radical views seem not to find any representation within the Taiwanese institutional debate or political discourse, they are coherent with the guest worker system implemented by Taiwan’s authorities, which heralds the discrimination and otherness of migrant workers in a country where national policies traditionally limit immigration significantly. In addition, Cockel sheds light on popular reactions to such issues on social media, particularly on ptt, where migrant workers appear to be ‘reimagined’ as inferior beings in the context of Taiwan’s social organisation (or, as Cockel’s argument implies, its social hierarchy), and the spread of antagonistic views is facilitated by the mechanisms that underpin the digital debate.

In the third contribution, titled ‘Can digital democracy guard citizens’ safety? Taking Taiwan’s battle against Covid as an exemplary case’, Chun-yi Lee and Yu-ching Kuo examine the boundaries and legitimacy of digital surveillance within democratic regimes. As digital surveillance has a significant impact on the relationship between collective safety and privacy, it requires constant recalibrations. After the outbreak of Covid-19, digital surveillance has become even more politically relevant for at least two reasons. First, it bluntly affected both the public and private lives of individuals worldwide. Second, it gave the state unprecedented power, particularly in democratic regimes. Under such circumstances, Lee and Kuo suggest that ‘digital democracy’, that is, the articulation of public policies through the digital space within democratic regimes, maintains a ‘contested’ nature, especially in Taiwan, where state policies have been praised globally for limiting the implications of the pandemic on collective health.

Focusing on populism, discrimination, and racism and their public manifestation on social media, as well as the critical relationship between digital surveillance and privacy, the contributions included in this topical section shed light on some of the most pressing challenges to Taipei’s political regime. Interestingly, such processes give headaches to many other—if not every—democratic countries, holding the potential to significantly deplete the capacity of democratic regimes to combine political legitimacy, socio-economic stability, and the concurrent safeguard of collective and individual interest. In this regard, Taiwan appears to be no different to other democracies, and for such reasons, almost paradoxically, the health and quality of its democracy seem to find evidence.