近代西方之所以發展出要求權力分立、以保障基本人權的立憲體制，有其歷史社會文化的根基。具有不同歷史文化觀念的臺灣人民，卻於十九世紀末，因政治上的改由日本統治，而首度接觸仿效西方立憲主義體制的法律規範。日本統治階層出於東西傳統憲政觀及殖民統治考量，並無誠意落實那些蘊含自由民主之法律規範，但某些在野、屬於「多數族」的臺灣人知識分子，已以之爭取「自由民主」。 一九四五年政治上再改由中國統治，統治階層的憲政觀念及相關法律規範，與日治時期相去不遠。一九四九年年底之後，在臺灣事實上出現山五個國家，其是由來自中國的國民黨外省菁英掌控，施行本於自由民主立憲主義而設、但暫時凍結自由民主的憲法規範。於國民黨統治前期，大多在政府部門工作、視臺灣為「復興基地」的外省族群，傾向於接受蔣氏父子的獨裁專制，而合稱為「本省人」的福佬、客家和原住民族群不但在政治上處於劣勢，且語文等障礙，使其難以憑藉立憲思想與政府相抗衡。 至國民黨統治後期，在學界逐漸形成一批現代立憲主義的代言人。自一九七○年代起的中央民代增額選舉，讓本省人為主的在野勢力有機宣揚自由民主理念，但國民黨政權仍透過與本省人地方派系結盟等方式，在選舉中獲得多數選票，故其原意逐步開放民主選舉，包括中央民代全改等。在法律範上已解除戒嚴且終止動員戡亂之宣告的一九九○年代，國民黨本省菁英經由選舉，逐漸掌握國民黨中央，使某些原本反自由民主的國民黨外省菁英，亦須參與民主選舉始能獲取政治權力。大法官也逐漸扮演立憲主義憲法「代言機關」角色，積極維護人民基本權利。二○○○年的中央行政部門政黨輪替，令所有國民黨政治菁英田在朝變在野，而須藉由自由民主來抗衡新的政府。 自由民主憲政在當今臺灣之所以能夠實現，存在著許多歷史的巧合。展望未來，臺灣社會仍需對根本的憲政觀念，進行更深層的省思與選擇。面對臺灣多元的族群與國族認同，應在憲法中包容各個族群以及不同的國族偏好者，讓人民經由對此一憲政秩序的認同，來認同臺灣這個國家。

The development of Constitutionalism in the modern West is rooted in its historical social culture. For the first time, people of Taiwan were faced with the legal norms of western constitutionalism when the Qing Dynasty of China ceded the island to Japan in the late 19th century. Adhered to the traditional values of East Asia and colonialism, the Japanese rulers merely paid lip service to the establishment of a liberal and democratic government. However, intellectuals of the local Taiwanese population had begun their struggle for liberal and democratic constitutional order. Japanese occupation ended in 1945 when the Republic of China resumed sovereignty over Taiwan, Nevertheless, the ruling class and constitutional laws bore great resemblance to those under Japanese rule. At the end of 1949, a government state emerged in Taiwan composed of political elite from Mainland China. Despite the implementation of constitutionalism, martial law was imposed. During the early rule under the Kuomintang (KMT), most government posts were taken up by Mainland Chinese. They supported the authoritarian rule under General Chiang Kai Shek and his successors and harbored the hope of recovering China from the communists. On the other hand, native Taiwanese of different ethnic origins and the aborigines were excluded from the central government and suffered political disadvantage, making it hard for them to exercise their constitutional rights. The 1960s saw an increasing number of liberal scholars who advocated for modern constitutionalism. The opposition party composed mainly of native Taiwanese was able to spread ideas of constitutional order in the election campaign of legislators in the 1970s. With access to administration resources and aided by local factions, the KMT could always win the majority of votes and hence accepted the proposal that all members of the Legislative Yuan should be elected. With the lifting of the martial law in the 1990s, the Mainland Chinese could no longer monopolize political power but had to compete with native Taiwanese who gained greater influence in the government through popular elections. At the same time, the Grand Justices began playing the role as supporters of human rights. Following their defeat in the presidential election of 2000, the KMT finally became the opposition party and saw constitutionalism as a ploy against the new government. The realization of liberal and democratic constitutional order in Taiwan can be seen as a coincidence in history. To enable constitutionalism to take root in Taiwan require deeper reflections and further efforts. In view of the multi-ethnic society and the ambiguous national identity, the Constitution of Taiwan should allow different voices to be heard while fostering greater recognition of the constitutional order and Taiwan as a nation-state.