The Founding of the Democratic Progressive Party: How the Non-Partisan Movement Turned a Taboo into an Organization at the Grand Hotel

30-Second Overview: On September 28, 1986, non-partisan figures borrowed the venue of the 1986 Non-Partisan Election Support Committee’s Candidate Recommendation Conference to announce the founding of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). At the time, Taiwan was still under martial law, and there was no safe, legal path for registering a new political party. The party founding built upon years of local elections, service offices, political journals, street protests, legislative inquiries, and secret negotiations. For the participants, this was an organizational adventure requiring the calculation of political risks. It transformed the "non-partisan" position—a relatively loose political stance—into an organization with a party name, platform, constitution, and candidate mechanism. However, it did not eliminate martial law, the "Millennium Parliament," or association restrictions on the day of its founding. Understanding this gap is key to seeing what the party founding truly changed.

The Grand Hotel Was Not Initially a "Party Founding Conference"

The meeting on September 28, 1986, was publicly framed as the "1986 Non-Partisan Election Support Committee Candidate Recommendation Conference." Non-partisan figures used a gathering that appeared to serve election support to place the motion to found a party, which could not be conducted openly, onto the agenda. The DPP’s official party history describes this day as a founding moment that broke through martial law prohibitions. Recollections from later participants, however, point out that the venue, name, and format of the meeting were strategically designed to avoid political taboos. ^{1 2 3}

This arrangement directly reflected the political environment of the time. The martial law regime still existed, and organizing a new political party could be interpreted as violating the existing order. Participants could not simply declare the founding of an opposition party as they would for an ordinary social group. Placing the party founding within a candidate recommendation conference meant first borrowing an existing election network, and then making the political organization public within that network. The primary challenge of party founding was whether people could gather safely, while also signaling to the outside world that the meeting had exceeded the scope of a standard election-support conference. Discussions of the party constitution and name had to be predicated on the premise that the gathering would not be immediately halted.

Records from different sources regarding the number of signatories, procedural details, and the time of announcement are not entirely consistent. An article compiled by the New Taiwan Foundation for Peace and Democracy records that approximately 130 people signed on site. The National Human Rights Museum’s related timeline describes the founding with 135 non-partisan figures signing. Official DPP materials focus on the founding on September 28 and the First National Party Congress in November, rather than defining the founding solely by a number. ^{1 2 3} These discrepancies do not change the fact that the party was founded, but they remind readers that political memory is not an automatically generated roster; later participants preserve events from different positions.

Caption: Author Bdavis545 photographed the Grand Hotel in 2015. The Wikimedia Commons file page indicates CC BY-SA 4.0. This photo shows the building of the meeting venue as it is visible today, not the actual footage of the 1986 founding scene. The article uses it to provide a concrete location for the political act of "using an existing meeting space to publicly found a party."

"Non-Partisan" Was a Position, Not a Complete Party

Before the party founding, opposition forces were often referred to as "non-partisan" (Dangwai). The meaning of this term was not equivalent to an organizational name; it referred to people who did not join the Kuomintang (KMT) but participated in politics through elections, legislatures, journals, service offices, or street actions. Research from the Academia Historica indicates that while the number of seats in the supplementary Central Legislative Yuan elections in the 1970s was limited, it provided a survival space for non-partisan forces and the later Democratic Progressive Party. Research from the Provincial Assembly shows that non-partisan legislators long conducted inquiries on local autonomy, the comprehensive renewal of the legislature, freedom of association, and political cases, accumulating recognizable political issues. ^{4 5 6}

Limited elections provided a缝隙 (crack) to enter the legislature, but also brought clear limitations. On one hand, opposition figures could enter the legislature, contact voters, establish service offices, and cultivate election workers, allowing local society the opportunity to see platforms different from the KMT. On the other hand, the supplementary elections did not replace the long-unrenewed Central Legislative Yuan members; martial law and the Mobilization Period for Suppression of Communist Rebellion still restricted political organization, publication, and assembly. Political reform research from the Academia Historica places the founding of the DPP in 1986, the lifting of martial law in 1987, and subsequent legislative reforms in a continuous but distinct reform process. This means that while party founding opened the door to competition, it did not mean the system was fully open. ⁴

The non-partisan movement of the 1970s was not solely about ballots. Research by Hsiao A-chin indicates that diplomatic setbacks, local culture, the "return to reality" of young intellectuals, and the political radicalization after the 1979 Formosan Incident collectively formed the ideological background of the 1980s non-partisan movement. Originally seemingly scattered historical writings, political journals, language and culture discussions, and election mobilization gradually became a public debate on national identity, political rights, and Taiwan’s social position. ⁷

This table does not arrange all non-partisan figures into a single team. Research data shows that participants in local grassroots, political figures in the legislature, street activists, journal editors, and overseas democrats did not have identical understandings of democratization, Taiwan independence, election strategies, and organizational forms. A National Tsing Hua University thesis on grassroots non-partisan movements particularly reminds us that service offices and local organizations were the main channels for the masses to enter politics; the action logic of grassroots participants cannot be completely replaced by the memories of a few founding leaders. ⁸

From the Public Policy Research Conference to Secret Working Groups

The pre-founding process of the party included multiple secondary organizations. The New Taiwan Foundation for Peace and Democracy compiled that the 1970s non-partisan election support groups, the Public Policy Research Conference (Gongzhenghui), and the later Compilation and Liaison Committee (Bianlianhui) gradually accumulated experience in coordinating platforms, candidates, and election work. An article by Qiu Wanxing on Tell Taiwan records, from a participant’s perspective, the interactions between the Public Policy Research Conference and the Compilation and Liaison Committee in 1986, the May 1986 Taiwan Democracy Party Founding Committee overseas, the ten-person secret group for party founding that began operations in July, and the negotiations over the party name and the Public Bulletin around the Grand Hotel meeting. ^{3 9}

These organizations were not the Democratic Progressive Party itself, but they provided the components necessary for party founding. The Public Policy Research Conference provided a space for public officials to exchange policies; the Compilation and Liaison Committee connected information from different localities and candidates; service offices gave supporters a fixed, accessible entry point. The existence of the secret working group showed that participants had to re-coordinate signatures, party platforms, party constitutions, and factional representatives under political risk. Existing rosters could only provide a starting point, not directly become the complete organization of a new party.

The party name "Democratic Progressive" was not a slogan that naturally emerged. Compilations by Tell Taiwan and the New Taiwan Foundation for Peace and Democracy place the negotiation of the party name at the core of the process before and after party founding. The name needed to be broad enough to allow different non-partisan factions to join together, yet clear enough for voters to know this was not a temporary election support group. The negotiation of the name also handled political lines: it placed democratic systems and social progress under the same banner, but did not eliminate members' differences regarding national positioning, street actions, and election strategies on the day of founding. ^{3 9}

The Political Act at the Grand Hotel

The truly key action on September 28, 1986, was changing "we are non-partisan" to "we are founding a political party." This transformation included three levels. First, opposition forces obtained a name recognizable by voters. Second, the organization could formulate a party platform and constitution, shifting from temporary coordination to continuous operation. Third, candidates’ participation in elections was no longer just the action of individuals or local support committees, but had the opportunity to be placed within a common party strategy.

The DPP’s official party history records that after the founding, the First National Party Congress was held at the Grand Hyatt Hotel on November 10, 1986, passing the party platform, constitution, and disciplinary arbitration measures, and electing the first party chairman. This time gap is important. September 28 was the announcement of founding; November was when organizational rules, party representatives, and disciplinary procedures were fixed. The announcement of founding was only the starting point. Subsequently, it was still necessary to use charters and procedures to place different individuals into an organization capable of continuous operation. ¹

The first party platform should not be interpreted retroactively through later party policies. The DPP in 1986 faced the primary question of how to survive under martial law, party bans, and limited elections, and how to make democracy, freedom, human rights, and social justice into a communicable common language. Its later continuous revisions on national positioning, cross-strait relations, social policies, and governing responsibilities mean that the 1986 founding declaration cannot be treated as a pre-written, complete governing blueprint. CALD’s party introduction places the DPP in the context of martial law authoritarianism and later democratic consolidation, supporting this periodized understanding. ¹⁰

Caption: The Wikimedia Commons file page marks this logo as a public domain image below the threshold of copyright originality, while reminding that some jurisdictions may still have trademark restrictions. The article uses it as a party identifier, without claiming it represents the original visual of the 1986 scene.

From the Grand Hotel to the Legislature: How an Organization Gained Institutional Position

Caption: The Wikimedia Commons file page marks this photo of the DPP Central Headquarters as public domain, sourced from Voice of America, uploaded by KOKUYO. The photo was taken many years after the party’s founding, showing the stage where the party formed a fixed administrative space. It supplements the spatial transition from temporary party-founding gatherings to daily party operations.

Caption: Author Yu tptw photographed the Legislative Yuan Chamber building in 2024. The Wikimedia Commons file page indicates CC BY-SA 4.0. The photo was taken today, presenting the institutional space that opposition forces had to face after party founding. It illustrates how street and local networks entered the legislature, accepting legislative procedures, party group consultations, and public accountability.

The Grand Hotel meeting completed the organizational declaration; the legislature requires the party to turn the declaration into verifiable political work. Candidates must present platforms; party groups must handle voting; local party branches must respond to voters; the central party must distribute resources among different factions. These works transform "opposition" from a shared emotion into continuous public responsibility, forcing the party to face supporters' specific expectations for human rights, local autonomy, and constitutional reform. Legislative reform was not completed on the day of the party’s founding. Institutional experience was accumulated gradually through these daily works.

After Party Founding, the System Did Not Immediately Become Open Competition

The first reality after party founding was that it had to run for office within the old system. Research from the Academia Historica cites the 1987 Legislative Yuan Speaker election, noting that DPP candidates Hsu Jung-shu and Wu Shu-chen participated in the voting. This scene looks like multi-party politics, but actually still occurred in a legislature where supplementary non-partisan members and senior central legislators coexisted. The DPP entering the legislature did not mean all Legislative Yuan seats had been re-elected by the people of Taiwan. ⁴

Britannica’s party entry treats the founding in 1986, the lifting of martial law in 1987, the first participation in elections as an organized party in 1989, and subsequent changes in Legislative Yuan seats separately. This periodization helps avoid a common simplification: writing the 1986 party founding as an instantly completed endpoint of democratization. A more precise statement is that party founding first established competitors; lifting martial law changed political risks; lifting the newspaper ban and publication system reform expanded public communication; legislative reform rehandled representation; and only then did a more complete party competition form. ¹⁰

The Historical Significance of the First Major Opposition Party

The importance of the Democratic Progressive Party’s founding lies not only in whether it later obtained central governing power. The earlier significance is that it gave opposition politics an organizational form. Without a party, opposition figures were easily divided into individual candidates, local factions, journal editors, or case parties. After the party was founded, voters could recognize a common logo; party members could participate in internal procedures; candidates could accept common policies and organizational coordination; the government had to view those previously called "non-partisan" as a long-existing political opponent.

After becoming a party, existing social mobilization also turned into new organizational responsibilities. The power of the non-partisan movement came from various social organizations and public issues; after party founding, the organization needed to handle candidate nominations, disciplinary management, resource distribution, and policy prioritization. Street activists might demand faster institutional breakthroughs; local organizations might care more about services and votes; party leaders had to maintain cross-factional cooperation. Party founding concentrated opposition forces, while simultaneously making internal differences more visible.

Therefore, September 28, 1986, should be understood as a door, not the period of a democratic story. The space of the Grand Hotel allowed a group of people who could not previously found a party publicly to complete a public declaration, but still required subsequent party congresses, elections, legislative inquiries, social movements, and institutional reform to allow party competition to transform from a one-time adventure into daily politics. Its historical value lies not in attributing all democratization achievements to one party, but in pointing out how Taiwan’s democracy was built layer by layer through local networks, public language, limited elections, and organizational action.

Event Data Card

References

Founding history requires reading official party history, participant memories, academic research, and institutional data simultaneously. The DPP’s official page can provide the organization’s self-understanding; articles by Qiu Wanxing and the New Taiwan Foundation for Peace and Democracy can supplement participant and support network perspectives; Academia Historica research can place the founding back into the context of supplementary elections, non-partisan Provincial Assemblies, and national reform lines. If only one source is read, the article easily becomes a party commemorative piece, a personal memoir, or an abstract overview of democratization.

Readers should also note that the 1986 party founding and the later DPP are not completely identical political entities. Organizations adjust through elections, constitutional amendments, social movements, and governing experience. The value of researching founding history is precisely to dismantle the party competition that has since become commonplace back into the risks of the time: under martial law that had not yet been lifted, publicly saying "we are founding a party" was itself a challenge to the state’s power to limit who organizes and who represents the people.

Party founding also rearranged the direction of political responsibility. Under the martial law regime, the government could categorize many public issues under public security, anti-communism, or administrative management; opposition figures often bore pressure as individuals. After the party was founded, candidates, the party chairman, party representatives, and party branches all had to be responsible for common claims. This made political conflicts more visible and prevented the organization from relying solely on the prestige of leaders. The party platform must answer the direction of the state; the party constitution must handle internal power; local organizations must face voters; the Legislative Yuan party group must turn street demands into legal and budgetary language. These works will not be automatically completed by the declaration at the Grand Hotel, but they are the actual test of whether a party can become part of a democratic system.

From this perspective, the relationship between the founding of the DPP and Taiwan’s democratization should not be summarized simply as "the birth of an opposition party." It was simultaneously the beginning of the organization of social movements, the institutionalization of election competition, and the redistribution of state legitimacy. Non-partisan figures originally had to shuttle through limited spaces; after party founding, they could demand the government publicly respond to a continuously existing political organization. The government could no longer treat dissent as individual events, because a party can accumulate issues, preserve records, cultivate candidates, and extend one protest into the policy demands of the next election. This accumulation is what gave the openness after 1987 an organization capable of bearing it.

Therefore, the 1986 party founding was neither a single party completing democratization nor an incidental event of the late martial law period. It concentrated political resources originally scattered in localities, the legislature, journals, and streets, allowing Taiwan’s society to produce an opponent capable of long-term competition with the ruling party. Subsequent lifting of martial law, comprehensive legislative renewal, direct presidential elections, and party alternation must be understood after this organizational turning point.

Further Reading

• Democratic Progressive Party, "Democratic Progressive Party History," https://www.dpp.org.tw/about/history_1
• Xue Huayuan, "Continuity and Rupture in Political Reform Lines and National Positioning: From Chiang Ching-kuo to Lee Teng-hui," https://presidentiallth.drnh.gov.tw/article.php?access=PATA00099/17848fa5
• Su Ruiqiang, "Democratic Dialogue between Non-Partisan Provincial Legislators and Provincial Governor Lee Teng-hui (1981–1984)," https://presidentiallth.drnh.gov.tw/article.php?access=PATA00093/0f87f8f7
• Tell Taiwan, "Historical 9/28: Founding of the Democratic Progressive Party in 1986," https://www.telltaiwan.org/16709