近期臺灣社會掀起一波針對國民黨籍立法委員的大規模罷免運動，這場風潮並非單一事件或偶然情緒的爆發，而是長期積累的不滿與焦慮的具體展現，背後涉及對政治人物操守、立法院運作品質、兩岸關係、國家安全以及政黨責任等多重層面。

首先，許多民眾對部分藍營立委的行事風格與價值立場產生強烈質疑。像是立法院國民黨黨團總召傅崐萁與北市中正萬華選出的徐巧芯，雖於2024年選舉中取得不錯的得票數，卻在短時間內遭遇極高比例的罷免連署。傅崐萁的罷免門檻為4萬8千多票，徐巧芯更是成為全國罷免聲量最高的立委。這顯示民眾不僅關注投票時的選擇，更在乎當選後的實際作為。

這些立委之所以成為罷免焦點，除了個人作風引發爭議，更與他們在兩岸與國安議題上的立場密切相關。許多發起罷免的團體與學者擔憂，某些藍營立委對中國態度過於親近，甚至可能成為北京對台統戰的渠道。聯電創辦人曹興誠在公共場合公開批評部分國民黨立委為「中共地下黨員」，呼籲民眾罷免他們，以守護台灣的民主體制與國家安全。

罷免運動也象徵著公民社會的進一步成熟。無論是來自花蓮的「還我好山好水自救會」，或是台北的基層居民聯盟，他們不是政黨動員的附屬者，而是真正自發的選民行動。這些罷免案，反映出人民對於政治代表責任的重新審視，也強化了代議政治中「民有、民治、民享」的精神。從立委質詢品質、國會審議態度到與社區的實際連結，民眾希望看到的不只是政黨鬥爭，而是真正能夠服務與回應地方聲音的民意代表。

然而，國民黨方面則視這波罷免行動為政治操作，甚至號召支持者發起「反綠共、戰獨裁」的街頭運動。這樣的對抗式回應反映出目前台灣政治極化的現狀，也凸顯罷免制度已成為民間對抗政治權力的重要工具。與此同時，藍白合作的策略也在此時展開，國民黨與民眾黨開始聯手抗衡綠營支持者所發起的罷免浪潮。

總體而言，「罷免國民黨」運動不僅是選民對幾位個別立委的不信任表態，更是一場深層的政治文化反思。台灣社會正透過制度性手段，積極檢驗權力運作，實踐民主的責任與制衡。面對政治人物在施政與價值立場上的偏差，人民透過罷免展現了監督意志，也開啟更深一層對民主本質的探討。這場運動所帶來的，不只是人事更迭，更是民意意識的集體覺醒。

A recent wave of large-scale recall movements targeting Kuomintang (KMT) legislators has swept across Taiwanese society. This phenomenon is not a result of isolated incidents or sudden emotional outbursts, but rather a concrete manifestation of long-standing dissatisfaction and growing anxiety. It reflects deeper issues concerning the integrity of political figures, the quality of legislative operations, cross-strait relations, national security, and the broader responsibilities of political parties.

At the heart of the discontent is a deep public distrust toward the conduct and value positions of certain KMT lawmakers. For instance, Fu Kun-chi, the KMT caucus leader in the Legislative Yuan, and Hsu Chiao-hsin, a legislator elected from Zhongzheng–Wanhua District in Taipei, have both come under intense scrutiny. Despite receiving a significant number of votes in the 2024 elections, they have quickly become focal points of recall efforts. Fu faces a recall threshold of over 48,000 votes, while Hsu has garnered the highest recall-related public discussion volume nationwide. This highlights that voters in Taiwan care not only about who they elect but also how those elected officials perform after taking office.

These lawmakers have become targets of recall not just due to their controversial personal behavior, but also because of their stances on cross-strait relations and national security. Many civil groups and scholars leading the recall efforts express concern that some KMT legislators exhibit overly pro-China tendencies, raising fears that they may act as conduits for Beijing's united front strategy against Taiwan. Prominent voices such as Robert Tsao, the founder of United Microelectronics Corporation, have publicly criticized certain KMT lawmakers, accusing them of being "underground CCP members," and have called on the public to recall them in order to safeguard Taiwan’s democratic system and national security.

The recall movement also signals the growing maturity of Taiwan’s civil society. Whether it is the “Save Our Mountains and Waters Self-Help Association” in Hualien or grassroots coalitions in Taipei, these initiatives are not driven by partisan mobilization, but by genuine, spontaneous action from voters. These recalls represent a re-evaluation of political accountability by the public and serve to reinforce the democratic principles of “of the people, by the people, for the people.” Voters are no longer content with partisan clashes alone; they seek representatives who are truly responsive to local voices and capable of serving the community’s needs—whether in legislative questioning, parliamentary deliberation, or day-to-day engagement.

However, the KMT has portrayed this wave of recall actions as politically motivated manipulation and has responded by mobilizing supporters to launch street movements under slogans such as “Fight Green Communism, Resist Dictatorship.” This confrontational stance reflects the deep political polarization in Taiwan and underscores how the recall mechanism has become a vital tool for citizens to challenge political authority. At the same time, it has also spurred a strategic alignment between the KMT and the Taiwan People's Party (TPP), forming a “blue-white” coalition aimed at resisting the pro-green recall wave.

In sum, the “Recall the KMT” movement is more than a rejection of a few individual legislators—it is a profound reflection on Taiwan’s political culture. Through institutional means, Taiwanese society is actively scrutinizing the exercise of power and practicing democratic accountability. Faced with deviations in governance and values among politicians, the people are using the recall system to express their supervisory will and to spark deeper discussions about the essence of democracy itself. Ultimately, this movement is not merely about personnel changes—it marks a collective awakening of public consciousness.