Most governments claim to rule by law, not force. They often start with democratic ideals on paper, only to twist or ignore them in practice. Why? And more importantly, why do people go along with it? Let’s look at China and Taiwan, two governments who shared roots but experienced radically different political evolutions.
The People’s Republic of China adopted its first constitution in 1954. Since then, it has been rewritten five times. Each constitution was framed as a progressive update to drive a new, more modern era than the last. In reality, however, it was the other way around: the constitution was written to fit the political needs of the ruling party’s new goals for the country. Over time, the PRC has used constitutional language to legitimize and strengthen centralized state power. For example, freedoms such as speech, religion, and assembly are technically protected in each of the constitutional revisions, but qualifiers and restrictions become more and more obvious. In practice, especially during periods of large reform or instability, these rights are practically non-existent.
The Republic of China in Taiwan, meanwhile, while facing similar unstable periods of power consolidation and restriction of rights, never fully re-wrote its founding constitution. Instead, rights were explicitly restricted by Temporary Provisions on the constitution and later a declaration of Martial Law. Freedoms and rights were no longer protected in writing during the Martial Law years, but once the president deemed that it was no longer necessary, all it took was one executive order to restore the full protection of the ROC Constitution. The PRC constitution changed gradually over decades, each change being framed as progress. The slow, subtle erosion of freedoms was masked by legal language in the constitution and nationalistic justification, making it harder for most people to recognize what rights were being lost. In contrast, Taiwan’s seemingly harsh imposition of Martial Law clearly showed a suspension of rights. This transparency, while repressive, meant that citizens knew what had been taken and what could be restored. As a result, Taiwan’s path back to democracy was clearer and more achievable