Trust and accountability in politics

On Oct. 25, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva won a fourth presidential term with 52 percent of the vote, overturning his narrow loss in the election’s first round earlier in the month. On the same day, former Serbian president Aleksandar Vucic conceded defeat in snap parliamentary elections to the leaderless Student List coalition. One veteran leader secured another term, and one strongman lost his footing. The reminder for Taiwan is that electoral support is conditional; those in power must improve people’s lives and accept accountability.

After his initial electoral setback, Lula stepped up campaign mobilizations in the streets and on social media. He also shifted focus from past achievements to plans for the future. Voters are concerned about costs: the pressures of rent, employment and caring for family members require concrete policy responses. Parties that keep rehashing old wins without addressing present problems risk overestimating the strength of their support base.

Meanwhile, the Vucic lesson is about accountability. In 2024, after the collapse of a concrete canopy in Novi Sad railway station that killed 16 people, students and the public demanded accountability and the release of all information on suspicion of corruption and negligence. Protests over the past two years eventually translated into an electoral force. Vucic resigned as president in September and sought to become prime minister, but failed to win the public’s trust. In Taiwan, we must ensure that accidents, construction contracts, inspection records and investigations into responsibility are open to scrutiny.

Those countries have their own unique political contexts, and their experiences can neither be directly applied to Taiwan, nor tell us which parties might win. However, both elections show that people’s everyday realities and how power is exercised shape political trust. National security and cross-strait risks deserve discussion, but the public also has the right to ask whether governments are effective and honest. Parties cannot expect to be let off the hook simply because voters share one of their political positions.

Civic mobilization also deserves attention. Lula turned support into votes, while Serbian students turned protest into a winning candidate list; both relied on organizing. Taiwan’s parties should move beyond circles where supporters merely reinforce one another’s views and listen to needs that have yet to be addressed. Online popularity cannot always translate electorally, and young people do not belong to any one party. Voters compare, hesitate and change their minds — no one should treat them as a fixed electoral base.

After an election, governance cannot rely solely on a common enemy for unity. Different groups can cooperate to oppose a particular leader, but disagreements might still emerge when it comes to allocating resources. When promising tax cuts, subsidies or infrastructure projects, Taiwan’s political parties should explain where the money would come from, who would benefit and what the costs would be. If everyone is told they can receive more at no cost, expectations are likely to fall short after the election, while fiscal pressures might crowd out public services.

Election winners must be held accountable: The ruling party cannot use an electoral mandate to reject oversight, and opposition parties must be sure to base their scrutiny on evidence and reason. Corruption investigations must follow due process, and political affiliations should not be treated as grounds for conviction. Positions in public office and business interests should never become tools for political patronage. In between elections, the state of free media and judicial impartiality determines whether the public can continue to hold power to account.

What Taiwan can learn from Brazil and Serbia is the importance of bringing politics back to measurable promises: how people’s lives have improved, how resources are used and who takes responsibility when things go wrong. Voters reserve the right to keep a government willing to change, and to replace one that has lost their trust. Any party that respects healthy democracy should ensure that the public always has this choice, and not only sing the people’s praises in electoral victory.

Li Ci-ze is an associate professor at National Changhua University of Education’s Department of Public Affairs and Civic Education.