Visualized Taiwan: Why the KMT Survived Taiwan’s Democratic Transition in the 1990s

In most post-authoritarian societies, the ruling regime collapses or quickly fades once political liberalization begins. Latin America, South Korea, and Eastern Europe all saw former military or one-party systems swept away at the ballot box.

Taiwan, however, followed a different trajectory.

Despite being the dominant force during decades of martial law, the Kuomintang (KMT) not only survived Taiwan’s transition to democracy in the 1990s—it thrived. It won the first free legislative election in 1992, the first direct election for Taiwan Provincial Governor in 1994, and the first direct presidential election in 1996—all with landslide victories.

What explains this political continuity? And what does it tell us about authoritarianism and public sentiment in Taiwan before democratization?

---

🟩 Was the KMT Really That Unpopular?

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) often portrays the KMT era as deeply unpopular and oppressive, but election results in the 1990s suggest a more nuanced reality.

In the early post-martial law years, most Taiwanese still voted for the KMT, indicating that the party wasn’t as broadly resented as some opposition narratives claim.

Indeed, many Taiwanese had materially benefitted from the “Taiwan Economic Miracle”—a period of rapid industrialization, export growth, and rising living standards under KMT rule. Political repression existed, but it was targeted, primarily affecting dissidents advocating Taiwan independence or left-wing politics, rather than the broader public.

President Chiang Ching-kuo last public appearance in ROC National Day’s celebration in 1987 and he lifted out the martial law in ealry 1987

---

🟦 Cultural Identity and Political Alignment in the 1990s

During the 1990s, many Taiwanese still held strong cultural and political attachments to “China” and the Republic of China (ROC). Support for Taiwan independence—a core stance of the early DPP—was viewed by many as risky, radical, or even destabilizing.

For instance, in the 1996 presidential election, the DPP candidate Peng Ming-min openly advocated formal independence and pledged to revise Taiwan’s relations with China—positions that alienated moderate and older voters who feared military retaliation or international isolation.

DPP candidate Peng Ming-min gives a televised campaign address in 1996

---

🟨 Uneven Playing Field: Free, But Not Entirely Fair

The KMT’s early electoral dominance wasn't solely based on popularity—it also reflected the advantage of decades of entrenched power.

Throughout the 1990s, the KMT maintained:

• Control over state resources and media (e.g., around 60% of the media was still KMT-linked in 2000)

• A vast, well-established party network at all levels of government

• Unofficial support from the military

Yes, the elections were free in the sense that voters had a choice and opposition parties could run—but they were not entirely fair, given the structural imbalance in visibility, resources, and institutional access. The KMT had the upper hand at nearly every stage.

---

🟥 Taiwanization Within the KMT

One critical factor that helped the KMT retain support was its internal transformation. The party, long seen as an elite organization dominated by post-1949 "Mainlander" immigrants (only about 15% of the population), began to embrace local Taiwanese voices.

This shift started under Chiang Ching-kuo, who opened space for native Taiwanese to rise to senior positions. After his death, Lee Teng-hui—a Taiwanese-born who spoke fluent Minnan (Taiwanese dialect)—became both president and later KMT party chairman.

Lee advanced the “Taiwanization” of the KMT, giving the party a more local and inclusive image. This helped the KMT reach beyond its traditional Mainlander base and secure broad support among native Taiwanese—essential for its electoral success.

At the KMT’s 14th National Congress in 1993, Lee Teng-hui was confirmed as the party’s undisputed leader

---

🟦 A Top-Down Democratic Transition

Another unique aspect of Taiwan's experience is that its transition to democracy was largely top-down. While civil society, the DPP, and grassroots activists played an important role, it was the KMT itself—under Lee Teng-hui’s leadership—that managed and implemented most of the key political reforms of the 1990s.

From constitutional amendments to electoral restructuring, the KMT steered the process, often at its own pace and with control over the outcomes. This institutional advantage gave it time to adapt, rebrand, and compete successfully in the new democratic arena.

After winning the 1996 election, Lee was hailed as “Mr. Democracy”

---

✅ Final Thoughts

Taiwan’s democratic transition stands out in global comparisons—not just because of how peaceful it was, but because the ruling party survived and even thrived.

The KMT’s early post-authoritarian success wasn’t just about historical momentum. It reflected a mix of:

• Genuine public support, especially from those who had benefitted economically;

• A party that evolved to accommodate Taiwanese identity;

• And a top-down transition, carefully shaped to maintain continuity and control.

Understanding how the KMT navigated this shift is essential to grasping Taiwan’s unique political transition—and why the political terrain looked so different than than it does today.

Shiqing Xiao

---

Click below for free updates on news and background information relating to Taiwan and its role in regional stability and US-China geopolitical rivalry.

---