Free China Movement

Evidence · Human Rights · Democratic Future

Take Action

English 简体中文 繁體中文 Français Deutsch Español

🔎

CCE-063 ｜ What Does Party Turnover Mean for Political Accountability?

Free China Movement

CCE-063 ｜ What Does Party Turnover Mean for Political Accountability?

v1.0 ｜ 2026-10-20

CCE-100 Civic Education Project · Index entry CCE-063

What does party turnover mean for political accountability?

Abstract: The significance of party turnover lies not in “changing the people in office,” but in making incumbents expect that they will one day leave power. This expectation changes the calculus of power: the opposition gets a chance to examine the records of the period in office, voters can use their ballots to punish failed governments, and electoral losers must prove their willingness to hand over power. Since 2000, the Republic of China (Taiwan) has experienced three alternations of central-government power — in 2000, 2008, and 2016. This experience shows that alternation does strengthen accountability, but it also carries the risks of “settling scores” and “retribution.” Whether accountability takes hold depends on who holds whom to account after the turnover, and under what rules.

I. Two Meanings in One Inaugural Address

On May 20, 2008, Ma Ying-jeou titled the first section of his inaugural address “The Historic Significance of the Second Party Turnover.” He said: “Today, we are not here to celebrate the victory of a party or an individual, but to bear witness together that Taiwan’s democracy has crossed a historic milestone.” The same address also promised: “Taiwan’s democracy will no longer see illegal wiretapping, selective prosecution, or political interference with the media or electoral bodies.”

These two sentences aptly reveal the two layers of the relationship between party turnover and accountability. The first stresses that the turnover itself is a mark of democratic maturity; the second is both the new incumbents’ indictment of their predecessors and a standard they set for themselves. A few months later, former President Chen Shui-bian was investigated soon after leaving office and was detained at the end of 2008, which the DPP side criticized as “selective prosecution.” The same term was used by both sides against each other before and after the turnover. This shows that turnover only creates the possibility of accountability; it does not automatically guarantee that accountability will be fair.

II. What Is “Accountability,” and Why Does It Need Turnover

Political science usually divides accountability into two types. One is “vertical accountability,” whereby voters reward or punish the government through elections; the other is “horizontal accountability,” whereby institutions such as the legislature, courts, and control and auditing bodies check one another. Both rest on a single premise: incumbents must believe they can lose power.

If the same party governs for a long time, even with elections held, incumbents may regard the cost of defeat as low, and horizontal oversight bodies can easily form a community of interests with the ruling party. Political scientist Huntington proposed the “two-turnover test” in The Third Wave (1991): a new democracy can be considered consolidated only if, after its founding election, the incumbents hand over power peacefully following two elections. This test is aimed precisely at accountability: only when both sides have lost and both have handed over power does “leaving office” become a credible threat.

III. Taiwan’s Three Turnovers

According to results published by the Central Election Commission, in the tenth-term presidential election of March 18, 2000, Chen Shui-bian and Annette Lu, nominated by the Democratic Progressive Party, were elected with 4,977,697 votes, or 39.30% of the vote, on a turnout of 82.69%, which the Commission recorded as “the nation’s first party alternation.” In 2008, Ma Ying-jeou and Hsiao Wan-chang, nominated by the Kuomintang (KMT), were elected, forming the second turnover. In 2016, Tsai Ing-wen and Chen Chien-jen, nominated by the DPP, were elected with 6,894,744 votes, or 56.12%, completing the third turnover and winning a Legislative Yuan majority in the same year for the first time.

Judging from the numbers, the 2000 winner took less than 40% of the vote, won amid a KMT split (with Soong Chu-yu running as an independent and taking 36.84%); 2008 and 2016 were both sweeping rejections of the ruling party. This difference shows that turnover does not have a single source: it can come from a split within the ruling camp, or from voters’ collective punishment of governing performance. Only the latter is closer to the original meaning of “accountability.”

IV. How Turnover Specifically Fosters Accountability

First, the opening of archives and information. New incumbents have an incentive to disclose their predecessors’ records of governance, bringing much information previously monopolized by the ruling party into public discussion.

Second, the testing of the judiciary and independent bodies. The 2004 presidential election result was extremely close, and the losing side filed suits to nullify the election and to nullify the election of the winner; the latter triggered Taiwan’s first comprehensive ballot recount, and both suits were ultimately dismissed. That losers can challenge through legal channels — and ultimately accept the verdict — is itself part of the accountability mechanism: it constrains not only the winners, but also the losers.

Third, the structural reckoning with a historically long-ruling party. After the 2016 turnover, the Act Governing the Handling of Ill-Gotten Properties by Political Parties and Their Affiliate Organizations was promulgated on August 10, 2016; Article 1 states its legislative purpose as “establishing a fair competitive environment for political parties, strengthening democratic politics, and implementing transitional justice,” and an Ill-Gotten Party Assets Settlement Committee was set up under the Executive Yuan to investigate property acquired by political parties during the authoritarian period. Supporters see it as a long-overdue reckoning with interests accumulated through long-term rule; opponents argue that it targets a specific party through special legislation. However one evaluates it, such questions could hardly have been raised under long-term one-party rule.

V. The Counterargument: Turnover Could Turn into a Cycle of Retribution

One serious criticism holds that when institutions are still immature, party turnover can easily turn accountability into “the victors settling accounts with the losers.” Critics point out: if prosecutorial agencies are influenced by incumbents, investigations of predecessors are hard to distinguish from political retribution; when a new government replaces large numbers of mid- and senior-level officials, the continuity of the civil service is weakened; and “transitional” legislation passed after each turnover may be seen as the majority party’s use of power to weaken its opponents. In some new democracies, prosecutions of outgoing leaders have indeed made later incumbents less willing to hand over power, because leaving office means losing personal safety.

This criticism carries weight. The Chen Shui-bian case is still regarded by some of his supporters as political persecution, while others see it as proof that even a former head of state is subject to the law; the two sides’ readings of the same case are diametrically opposed. But what this criticism reveals is less a flaw of turnover than another condition of accountability: holding people to account must be carried out by bodies that are relatively independent, procedurally open, and subject to appeal — not decided directly by the new government. Turnover provides the motive for accountability; only an independent judiciary and due process can lend accountability its legitimacy.

VI. A Contrast: Accountability Without Turnover

In systems without competitive elections, some form of “accountability” also exists, such as performance reviews of subordinates by superiors and disciplinary investigations inside the ruling party. But such accountability runs top-down: officials answer to their superiors, not to voters, and the top decision-making level itself lacks any mechanism of replacement. The targets and timing of disciplinary investigations are decided by the ruling party, so outsiders can hardly tell whether they are removing corruption or removing rivals. The distinctiveness of party turnover is that it hands voters the decision of “whether to replace the top incumbent” — something no internal review can substitute for.

VII. Limitations

This article takes Taiwan as its principal case and discusses less the systems whose electoral outcomes have long been dominated by a single party yet which remain liberal democracies (such as Japan’s long postwar governance by the Liberal Democratic Party); such cases show that “frequency of turnover” and “intensity of accountability” are not in a simple proportional relationship. The accounts in this article of the procedures in the Chen Shui-bian case and of the Ill-Gotten Party Assets Act are general summaries, without citing individual judgments and provisions one by one. In addition, sources differ on the decimal-place details of the vote percentages in the 2008 election, which this article has not used.

VIII. Conclusion

The significance of party turnover for political accountability can be summarized in three points: it makes “leaving office” a possibility that incumbents must take seriously, thereby changing their behavior while in office; it brings information and interests previously monopolized by the ruling party into public scrutiny; and it forces electoral losers to express dissent through legal channels rather than in the streets or by force. But turnover is only the starting point of accountability. If the process of holding people to account lacks an independent judiciary and due process, turnover may degenerate into round after round of score-settling, weakening all sides’ willingness to hand over power. Taiwan’s experience across three turnovers shows that democratic accountability is not the result of any single election, but a long-term practice in which both sides can afford to lose and are willing to accept the same set of rules.

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.