Free China Movement

Evidence · Human Rights · Democratic Future

Take Action

English 简体中文 繁體中文 Français Deutsch Español

🔎

CCE-061 ｜ What Were the Key Factors in Taiwan’s Democratic Transition?

Free China Movement

CCE-061 ｜ What Were the Key Factors in Taiwan’s Democratic Transition?

v1.0 ｜ 2026-10-19

CCE-100 Civic Education Project · Index entry CCE-061

What were the key factors in Taiwan’s democratic transition?

Abstract: The Republic of China (Taiwan) went from 38 years of martial law imposed in 1949 to its first direct presidential election in 1996 and its first central-government party alternation in 2000, completing the transition in a little over a decade. This article argues that no single factor alone explains this process: the sustained pressure of the opposition movement, strategic concessions by reformists within the ruling party, the reactivation of constitutional and judicial mechanisms, the constraints of the external environment, and the conditions created by socioeconomic change interacted with one another. Among these, the “bargaining” structure between the opposition and those in power explains the timing and path of the transition better than economic growth alone or the personal will of any leader.

I. Where the Question Comes From: Two Competing Official Narratives

On October 7, 1986, then-President Chiang Ching-kuo gave an interview in Taipei to Katharine Graham, chair of the board of The Washington Post. According to the paper’s report the next day, he said the government would soon propose lifting the emergency order commonly known as “martial law” (reported as paraphrase, not a verbatim quotation). Nine months later, at midnight on July 15, 1987, martial law was lifted in Taiwan.

Twenty years later, on July 6, 2007, then-President Chen Shui-bian offered a different reading in an interview with the same newspaper. In the English transcript released by the Presidential Office, he said lifting martial law was “not just a magnanimous gesture by Chiang Ching-kuo toward the people of Taiwan” but that “even he could not go against the tide of democracy”; he named the 1979 Kaohsiung Incident and the founding of the Democratic Progressive Party on September 28, 1986 as the two major factors that forced the lifting of martial law.

The two narratives correspond to two scholarly classifications. In The Third Wave, Huntington classified Taiwan as the “transformation” type, i.e., led by the ruling elite; the DPP side tends to favor the “transplacement” type, i.e., the result of joint action by the government and the opposition (see the 1993 survey by Leng Shao-chuan and Lin Cheng-yi in The China Quarterly). Which one is closer to the facts is the question this article seeks to test.

II. A Few Easily Confused Concepts

“Liberalization” and “democratization” are not the same thing. Lifting martial law, opening party and press registration, and abolishing the “Punishment of Rebellion Act” loosened restrictions on speech and association — that is liberalization; only the full re-election of parliament and the direct popular election of the president touched on “who rules and how rulers are replaced” — that is democratization. After martial law was lifted in 1987, the National Security Act took effect at the same time, and the “sedition of speech” offense in political cases was only essentially eliminated after Article 100 of the Criminal Code was amended in 1992. Lifting martial law was thus the starting point, not the finish line.

“Democratic transition” and “democratic consolidation” must also be distinguished. The former refers to the establishment of a competitive electoral system; the latter usually means that all major political forces regard elections as the only acceptable means of power transfer. The importance of the first party alternation in 2000 lies in its testing of whether the old ruling party was willing to hand over power after losing an election.

III. Institutional Background: The “Frozen” Constitution

The Constitution of the Republic of China, which took effect in 1947, itself provided for regular parliamentary re-election and presidential term limits, but the Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of Communist Rebellion, promulgated on May 10, 1948, granted the president emergency powers and exempted presidential re-election from constitutional limits. Martial law was imposed in Taiwan on May 20, 1949. The first-term central representatives, elected on the mainland, were never re-elected on the grounds of “major upheaval of the state,” forming the so-called “ten-thousand-year parliament.”

In other words, in legal form Taiwan’s democratization did not “import” a new constitution, but restored to operation a constitution that had been hollowed out by the Temporary Provisions. This is key to understanding the later path: reformers could invoke the legitimacy of the existing constitution, while conservatives could hardly deny the constitutional text itself publicly.

IV. Factor One: Sustained Pressure from the Opposition Movement

On December 10, 1979, Formosa Magazine held a World Human Rights Day rally in Kaohsiung, clashing with riot police. According to materials compiled by the National Human Rights Museum, eight people — Huang Hsin-chieh, Shih Ming-teh, Lin Yi-hsiung, Annette Lu, Chang Chun-hung, Chen Chu, Yao Chia-wen, and Lin Hung-hsuan — were tried from March 18, 1980 in the military court of the Taiwan Garrison Command, and sentenced on April 18, 1980 (some sources record April 5; both dates are in circulation, pending verification against the original judgment). They were convicted of “plotting to overthrow the government by illegal means”; Shih Ming-teh received life imprisonment, Huang Hsin-chieh 14 years, and the rest 12 years.

The crackdown did not extinguish the opposition movement. The major military trial was conducted publicly, and the political claims the defendants made in court were widely reported by the media; the defendants’ family members and defense lawyers subsequently entered elections — the 1983 election of Fang Su-min, wife of Lin Yi-hsiung, as a supplementary legislator is one example. On September 28, 1986, tangwai (outside-the-party) figures announced the founding of the Democratic Progressive Party while the party ban was still in place. The authorities did not carry out mass arrests again, and ten days later Chiang Ching-kuo publicly announced his intention to lift martial law.

Tun-jen Cheng’s study published in World Politics in 1989 argued that analyzing Taiwan’s democratization should focus on the formation of opposition forces and the bargaining structure between the regime and its challengers, rather than socioeconomic change itself; the opposition’s capacity in agenda-setting, shifting the venue of negotiation, and creating incentives for reformists within the ruling party to participate was the key to the breakthrough.

V. Factor Two: The Ruling Party Reformists’ Choice

Opposition pressure was a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one. Facing similar protests, many authoritarian regimes chose harsher crackdowns. The Kuomintang’s (KMT) turn to reform was related to the presence within it of reformists willing to concede, and also to the ruling party’s long-accumulated organizational advantages in local elections: Cheng’s same study notes that the KMT could still maintain its dominant position within the new political framework; from this it can be inferred (this article’s own inference) that opening competition was not a matter of life and death for the ruling party.

After Chiang Ching-kuo’s death in January 1988, Lee Teng-hui succeeded him. In mid-March 1990, university students staged a sit-in at Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall Square in Taipei (the “Wild Lily student movement”), putting forward four demands: dissolve the National Assembly, abolish the Temporary Provisions, convene a National Affairs Conference, and set a timetable for political and economic reform. Lee Teng-hui subsequently convened the National Affairs Conference on June 28 of the same year, and on April 30, 1991 announced that the Period of Communist Rebellion would end at midnight on May 1, with the Temporary Provisions abolished the same day. Those in power rode the momentum to convert social pressure into a top-down constitutional-amendment process, which both advanced the transition and allowed the KMT to control the pace of reform.

VI. Factor Three: The Institutional Exit Opened by Constitutional Interpretation

The legal key to ending the “ten-thousand-year parliament” was Interpretation No. 261 issued by the Council of Grand Justices on June 21, 1990. The interpretation was petitioned by Chen Shui-bian and 25 other legislators; its text held that the earlier Interpretation No. 31, Article 28(2) of the Constitution, and the relevant provisions of the Temporary Provisions did not intend “to allow the first-term central representatives to continue exercising their powers indefinitely or to alter their terms of office,” and required first-term central representatives who had not been regularly re-elected to “cease exercising their powers by December 31 of the 80th year of the Republic of China” (December 31, 1991).

The interpretation was not without controversy. Grand Justice Lee Chih-peng filed a dissenting opinion, arguing that under Article 28(2) of the Constitution and Interpretation No. 31, first-term representatives should not leave office until the next-term representatives were elected and convened, and that the majority opinion “clearly conflicted with” the above provisions. This disagreement reminds us: the role of the judiciary in a transition depends on judges’ assessment of the political situation, not on the automatic operation of legal texts themselves.

Parliament was subsequently fully re-elected in stages. Under the Additional Articles of the Constitution amended and promulgated on May 28, 1992, the president was to be elected by “all the people of the free area”; the third constitutional amendment in 1994 further specified direct election. On March 23, 1996, the first direct presidential election was held, with a turnout of 76.04%; Lee Teng-hui and Lien Chan were elected with 5,813,699 votes, or 54.00% of the vote (Central Election Commission data).

VII. Factor Four: External Constraints

Section 2(c) of the U.S. Taiwan Relations Act, signed into law on April 10, 1979 (effective January 1, 1979 under Section 18), states that “the preservation and enhancement of the human rights of all the people on Taiwan” is reaffirmed as a U.S. objective. After the Kaohsiung Incident, expressions of solidarity from international human-rights organizations, U.S. members of Congress, and overseas Taiwanese were listed by the National Human Rights Museum as one of the background factors enabling the major military trial to be conducted publicly.

The role of external factors should be assessed cautiously. It more closely resembles raising the cost of repression and providing the opposition with a kind of “protection,” rather than directly determining the content of reform. Describing Taiwan’s democratization as a result “exported” by the United States would ignore the long-term organization and struggle on the island.

VIII. The Strongest Counterargument: Economic Development Is the Fundamental Cause

An important competing explanation comes from “modernization theory.” Lipset argued in 1959 that economic development, the spread of education, and the growth of the middle class increase the likelihood of democracy’s emergence and survival. Taiwan underwent rapid industrialization from the 1960s to the 1980s; highly educated professionals played a prominent role in the tangwai movement — for example the defense lawyers in the 1980 major military trial, several of whom later entered electoral politics — which seems to support the theory.

This argument has considerable explanatory power: without the education, urbanization, and relatively independent social strata brought by economic growth, the opposition movement could hardly have sustained its manpower and funding. But it struggles to explain timing: Taiwan’s economy had already been growing rapidly in the 1970s, while political opening occurred mainly between 1986 and 1996. Przeworski & Limongi’s 1997 cross-national study also found that economic development more powerfully explains whether a democracy survives after it is established, while having weaker explanatory power for when authoritarian regimes turn democratic. The long-term existence of high-income authoritarian or hybrid regimes such as Singapore is likewise a counterexample that modernization theory must confront.

The safer conclusion is therefore: economic development provided the conditions and resources, but the specific timing and manner of the transition depended on the interaction among political actors. This is also why, as stated in the abstract, this article lists socioeconomic change as one of five interacting conditions rather than as an independent primary cause alongside the first four.

IX. Methodological Limitations

First, the “key factors” question is essentially counterfactual inference: we cannot observe a Taiwan “without the Formosa Incident” or “if Chiang Ching-kuo had chosen repression.” Any ranking carries the interpreter’s judgment.

Second, some materials on decision-makers’ motives come from retrospective recollections or public statements by political figures — for example, Chen Shui-bian’s 2007 statement itself carried a partisan position; Chiang Ching-kuo’s 1986 statement reached us via media paraphrase. This article has marked the nature of these sources when citing them.

Third, a single case can hardly test general theories. Taiwan’s particularities — including that the ruling party was itself an émigré regime, the intertwining of ethnicity and national-identity issues, and the long-term military pressure from across the Strait — mean its experience cannot simply be applied to other societies.

X. Conclusion

The key to Taiwan’s democratic transition lies neither in any one leader’s “bestowal” nor in the natural result of economic growth, but in an identifiable interactive structure: the opposition movement continuously expanded political space at great cost; reformists within the ruling party judged the cost of repression too high and their chances of winning in competition still good, and so chose to concede and lead the constitutional-amendment process; the frozen constitution and judicial interpretations provided a legitimate exit for those concessions; the external environment raised the cost of repression. Economic development was the soil of all this, but not the sower.

The completion of the transition is marked by the election of March 18, 2000: DPP candidates Chen Shui-bian and Annette Lu were elected with a 39.30% plurality, which the Central Election Commission called “the nation’s first party alternation.” According to Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2026 report, Taiwan scores 93/100 (38/40 for political rights, 55/60 for civil liberties) and remains rated “Free.” Once democratic institutions were established, how to keep them functioning amid disagreement is another question.

Sources

Review record: Editorial independent review, 2026-10-19. Verdict: PASS.

← Back to the CCE-100 Civic Education Project index

Other language editions

This article is also available in Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, French, German and Spanish.