The “726 Recall” was a spontaneous civic movement. Many people originally believed that through the recall mechanism, unfit legislators could be removed from office, allowing society to see the anger and determination of the people. However, the result was disappointing. Voter turnout on the side supporting the recall was insufficient, and their forces were scattered, leading to the failure of the effort. In contrast, those opposed to the recall, sensing the crisis, mobilized effectively, and as a result, every targeted legislator survived.

The 726 recall revealed three fundamental problems. First was the lack of organized mobilization among the supporters of recall. In a democracy, elections or recalls are decided by concrete numbers of votes, not by the intensity of emotions. When citizens are dissatisfied with a legislator’s behavior but fail to translate this dissatisfaction into ballots, the movement collapses. Even if public opinion appears highly critical, if turnout does not reach the legal threshold, and the “yes” votes do not surpass the “no” votes, the recall inevitably fails.

Second was the lack of social consensus. Many people resonated with dissatisfaction toward certain legislators, but there was no unified front when it came to strategy and execution. Different communities and political camps had different calculations, and no shared plan emerged. As a result, blind spots appeared. Some citizens believed, “The recall will never succeed,” “Voting doesn’t matter,” “There are no clear reasons for recall,” or even, “It’s just a sore-loser tactic.” In short, both sides held firm in their own logic, leaving consensus fractured.

Third, there was a prevalence of skepticism and apathy. Too many people chose to stay home, whether because of doubt or indifference. This failure of participation meant the system’s high thresholds became even harder to overcome. Democracy relies not only on rights but on citizens’ willingness to exercise those rights. Without participation, even the best-designed mechanisms fail to function.

Now, the upcoming 823 recall of seven district legislators will be another test of Taiwan’s democratic system. These seven lawmakers face scrutiny because of their positions on national security, cross-strait relations, and major livelihood policies. The 823 recall is not just about seven individual districts—it is about the overall functioning of the Legislative Yuan and the quality of Taiwan’s democracy.

Recall is a vital tool of civic oversight. Democracy does not end with elections every four years; it includes mechanisms that allow voters to issue warnings to unfit representatives in real time. If legislators betray the expectations of their constituents, recall serves as the people’s second chance to express their will. Moreover, recall is a necessary action to counter lawmakers who defy mainstream opinion. By recalling them, citizens can clearly signal to political figures what values and positions reflect Taiwan’s democratic consensus.

At the same time, recall serves as a warning to other legislators. When they see that recall is a real possibility, they will be more cautious in their behavior, less willing to disregard public opinion, and more accountable to their constituents. This indirect effect strengthens the sense of responsibility across the entire legislature.

Civic groups argue that if these seven legislators are not recalled, several serious problems will follow. First, the legislators themselves will interpret the result as a tacit endorsement, and thus feel emboldened to obstruct reforms or boycott legislation even more aggressively. Second, if the legislature is locked in perpetual confrontation, important livelihood policies and reform measures will be delayed, causing the legislature to stall while the public suffers. Third, repeated failures of recall will erode citizens’ confidence in the system. As apathy deepens, a vicious cycle forms, and the legitimacy of democratic institutions is undermined. Finally, as pro-Beijing forces strengthen in the legislature, Taiwan risks losing more autonomy on the international stage. This could bring serious national security concerns and even force Taiwan into unfavorable political arrangements.

It is important to recognize that “passion” is not the foundation of democracy. A functioning democratic system relies on structured institutions and procedures, not mere emotion or enthusiasm. Passion can motivate citizens to participate, but without institutional constraints and rational deliberation, passion can spiral into chaos or extremism, even corroding the pillars of democracy itself. While passion has a role to play in mobilization, it cannot replace the rational and institutional basis of democracy. True democracy requires reasoned debate, rule-based processes, and respect for differing opinions.

For this reason, civic groups must adjust their advocacy strategies. Instead of relying too heavily on impassioned rhetoric, they should focus more on addressing citizens’ real concerns in concrete and relatable ways. By presenting specific examples of how these seven legislators have failed in their duties, campaigners can foster greater understanding and build broader support among the public.

The lessons of the 726 recall must therefore be applied to 823. Democracy is not only about anger; it is about organization, persistence, and translating discontent into action at the ballot box. Recall is not a weapon of chaos—it is a safeguard of accountability. Whether or not Taiwan’s democracy becomes stronger depends on whether citizens are willing to learn from past failures and turn reflection into renewed participation.