On the 80th anniversary of the victory in Europe, for China and Russia, this marks the triumph of the global anti-fascist war. Taiwan’s role on this day is unique, as it was both a defeated party and a victor, since China reclaimed Taiwan from Japan after World War II.
At that time, China was governed by the Kuomintang (KMT), which was driven to Taiwan by the Chinese Communist Party four years later. Eighty years on, the KMT faces an existential crisis, with its local branches subjected to widespread judicial searches, its legislators targeted by a recall campaign instigated by the ruling party, and key party figures detained for interrogation. The ruling party appears intent on dismantling the main opposition party, with its extensive local networks, by labeling it a “criminal organization.”
On the anniversary of the anti-fascist victory, the KMT chairman fiercely criticized the ruling party’s descent into fascism and Nazism. He accused his rivals of using democracy as a pretext to weaponize the judiciary against the opposition, likening their actions to those of Hitler and warning that Taiwan’s democracy is sliding toward dictatorship and authoritarianism.
These remarks were swiftly condemned by the Deutsches Institut Taipei (DIT)—Germany’s de facto embassy in Taiwan—which rejected any comparison between Taiwan’s current politics and the Nazi “socialist tyranny” in Germany, expressing disappointment and concern over the KMT’s flawed analogy. The DIT’s stance was subsequently supported by the Bureau Français de Taipei (BFT) and the Israel Economic and Cultural Office in Taipei (ISECO).
The chairman of the KMT criticized DIT for becoming an accomplice of Taiwan’s ruling party in persecuting the opposition party, citing “foreign governments should not intervene in internal affairs” as the reason for his criticism the next day.
The question is, what is the relationship between democracy and “anti-fascism”? Can a democratic state use fascist methods to eliminate opposition parties?
Israel’s Netanyahu government has been criticized by many Israeli voters as authoritarian, with judicial reforms aimed at consolidating power and curbing free speech. In France, the Macron government’s recent judicial attacks on the National Rally (RN) and its leader, Marine Le Pen, have sparked widespread controversy.
As for Germany, political parties are uniting to ban the country’s second-largest party, the Alternative for Germany (AfD), prompting the AfD to file an administrative appeal against the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV).
Are the ruling parties of Germany, France, Israel, and Taiwan all “canceling” their main competitors in the name of democracy? Let’s take a look at the current state of German politics on the 80th anniversary of the war against fascism.
“Banning popular opposition candidates from running has become something of a fashion in EU countries,” wrote Dieter Stein, editor of Germany’s leading conservative weekly, Junge Freiheit, in a piece for The American Conservative. He warned that “German democracy is in peril” after the BfV labeled the AfD a “proven extremist” party without sufficient evidence.
Stein alleges that the BfV, as an executive rather than a judicial body, is an espionage agency that is allowed to use wiretaps, hack into computers and e-mail, send undercover agents to infiltrate the party, and even send spies to “get information,” and analogizes the agency to the former East German secret service, the Stasi.
The crux of the issue: Can an opposition party be “canceled” solely for its radical rhetoric? Stein argued that the BfV cited “radical statements” by individual AfD members via social media posts, but these statements were not unconstitutional. It is fundamentally anti-democratic for an administrative body to characterize a political party and to serve as a guideline for the parliament and the federal government to “cancel” that party. He also quoted the US Secretary of State’s comment that Germany was a “tyranny in disguise.”
According to the democratic process, the AfD’s survival is decided by the Constitutional Court, and the court process takes several years; Stein expects that the Constitutional Court may force the AfD’s forced dissolution before the 2029 federal elections.
Is this a fascist-style “cancellation”? Is Stein’s accusation fair? Opinions may vary, but it undeniably stirs democratic controversy. This is not Germany’s first attempt to restrict or dissolve a “troublesome” party.
In 2003, the Schröder government tried to ban the far-right Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NPD) through constitutional means but failed. The court ruled that “A significant portion of the evidence presented by the government came from the government’s secret informants inside the NPD.”
The Schröder government’s failure, and its use of improper methods, inadvertently bolstered the NPD’s legitimacy. Yet the story continued. Fourteen years later, in 2017, the NPD faced the Constitutional Court again.
In 2017, the court unanimously ruled that while the NPD’s ideology violated the free democratic order, there was insufficient evidence it could achieve its anti-constitutional goals, so the ban was rejected. However, NPD has since been barred from receiving state funds.
The two rulings hinged on different grounds: one on the plaintiff’s improper methods, the other on the defendant’s lack of political strength to threaten the state. Now, as Germany’s second-largest party, the AfD clearly wields significant political power. If the court rules as a matter of law, the plaintiff’s success will depend on whether he or she has used improper means.
This explains why Stein focuses on the “spy agency.” The opponent’s improper methods may be the AfD’s only lifeline amid widespread attacks.
In other words, the primary enemy of democracy is “improper methods,” including but not limited to wiretapping, infiltration, illegal data theft, abuse of judicial investigations, misuse of detention procedures, and selective prosecution.
One cornerstone of democracy is judicial independence. When the judiciary becomes a political tool, democracy becomes a mere veneer for dictatorship.
Hitler, too, was elected through democratic processes, but we know that abusing democracy leads to fascist dictatorship. This is the basis of the KMT’s accusations against Taiwan’s ruling party. Yet DIT seems to have turned a blind eye to the judicial abuse of power by Taiwan’s ruling party. Can we then reasonably question that the mainstream political parties in Germany are using similar tactics to deal with AfD, tactics that Taiwan and Germany euphemistically call “defending democracy”?
Although the incumbent chairman of the KMT is not a qualified leader of the opposition party, his leadership and the qualification of his democratic philosophy are two different things. Democracy is prone to double standards, and the judiciary is easily politicized. Thus, upholding democratic principles and judicial independence is what truly deserves defense.
Whether or not Europe is using anti-democratic means to stop the political “right-leaning” is not a matter of concern to the people of Taiwan. However, DIT’s meddling in Taiwan’s internal affairs has turned us to scrutinize Europe’s adherence to democracy.
We hold a fundamental prohibition in our hearts: one cannot use fascist methods to oppose fascism, let alone falsely claim such actions are “defending democracy.”
