Political Transitions in East and Southeast Asia - Research Proposal Example

Research Proposal: Democratic Transitions of South Korea Topic of the paper Democratic Transitions of South Korea 2. Thesis Civil society has significant role in the democratic transition of South Korea. South Korea emerged in the third wave of democratization, started by Portugal, and reached this stage because of the participation of civil society composed of students, the working class, religious groups, and ordinary citizens of Korea. We argue from Putnam’s theory of social capital that it is one important element of change in democratic states and that mass publics played a key role in South Korea’s transition to democratic state. Korea’s democratic transition is continual and sustained. 3. Research Question How has civic participation affected the process of democratization that led to the present independent and prosperous Korea? This is important in the academic field because it is about social and political awareness in which the students should be concerned and have knowledge to prepare them for active social and political life. It encourages discussion and debate on how South Korea and new Asian democracies in the third wave of democratization evolved and how the people view and value democracy in the midst of economic struggles. 4. How to solve the problem This question can be addressed by looking at the people’s involvement or membership in voluntary organizations, which have mushroomed since the country’s transition to democracy in 1987. Civil society and voluntary organizations have participated in the social and political activities in South Korea, improving the people’s outlook and enhancing their quality of life. Today, these organizations influence economic policy making of the government and perceptions on important social and political issues of Korea. Review of the Literature Huntington’s Third Wave The third wave is about the wave of democratic transitions of many countries, which began in Portugal in 1974, Africa and East and Southeast Asia. In South Korea, it started in 1960 until the overthrow of the authoritarian regime in 1987. The third wave is about democracy, about how these states fought for democracy, and how they survived up to this time of intense globalization and competition. The first drama unfolded in Portugal. Young members of the Portuguese military, concentrated in and around Lisbon, responded to a call from a radio station after it played the song “Grandola Vila Morena,” a signal to start the coup d’etat. It was a very successful takeover of the military, wherein troops occupied key agencies of the government, including broadcast stations and key installations. The people supported the coup, forcing the dictator, Marcello Caetano, to surrender and submit himself to for an exile. This Portuguese coup became “an implausible beginning” of a series of protest movements in the different parts of the world. Huntington (1955) calls it implausible because coups d’etat are used to “overthrow democratic regimes than introduce them” (p. 4). Portugal’s example of democratization is unique because while it started global democratic movement, it was not in the minds of leaders of the coup to introduce a democratic transition. However, the Portuguese experience encouraged a wave of protests, rallies, and democratic transitions in many parts of the world. There were transitions in Asia and Africa. In the Philippines, it was termed “people power”. Countries began democratic transitions and struggled to maintain democracy. Anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1973 as cited in Sidel, 2012, p. 114) offered his assessment of the new states in his landmark essay, “The Fate of Nationalism in the New States”: The peoples of the new states are simultaneously animated by two powerful, thoroughly interdependent, yet distinct and often actually opposed motives – the desire to be recognized as responsible agents whose wishes, acts, hopes, and opinions “matter,” and the desire to build an efficient, dynamic modern state. The one aim is to be noticed: it is a search for identity, and a demand that the identity be publicly acknowledged as having import, a social assertion of the self as “being somebody in the world”. The other aim is practical: it is a demand for progress, for a rising standard of living, more effective political order, greater social justice, and beyond that of “playing a part in the larger arena of world politics,” of “exercising influence among the nations.” The Contaminating Waves of Democratization The series of democratization in different areas around the globe was contaminating. Democratic ideas are common in different times. In the ancient world, democracy was limited and excluded women and slaves and several categories of people. Modern democracy refers to governments or nations governed by people elected by means of voting. Western democracy gained momentum during the seventeenth century. In England, pushing for democracy was one of the features of the English Revolution. The United States traces its democratic roots from “The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut,” which was an answer to the cry of the people of Hartford and the surrounding towns on January 14, 1638, wherein they regarded it as a “written constitution” (Huntington, 1955, p. 13). After the Puritan revolutions in England and later in America, democracy did not resemble the democracy of modern times. The governments of England and America were restricted to a select people and could not be considered as representative of the people, as it is today. In many ways, there was a resurgence of “an aristocratic and oligarchic” class of people. Democratic institutions were uncommon in the period 1750, but these institutions started to emerge by the 1900s. By the latter decades of the twentieth century, many countries have had their own democratic institutions and even existed during “waves of democratization” (Huntington, 1955, p. 15). Causes of democratization are varied, although cannot be determined as stated in Huntington’s book. However, there is a correlation between economic progress and democracy, but there is no pattern of economic progress as a prerequisite for democratization. In the context of the third wave, democratic factors were one of the causes for democratization, in some way. During those democratizations, there were crisis one after another that affected it, for example, the oil crisis in some areas and the Marxist-Leninist restrictions in others that caused economic downturns in authoritarian countries. Another thing, in the 1970s many countries were possessing a certain level of economic development that allowed them to transition to democracy. In some countries, rapid economic growth destabilized authoritarian governments (Huntington, 1955). Korea’s democratic transition qualifies inclusion in the third wave concept of Huntington’s (1955) book. Huntington describes the background for democracy. It is a form of government, which traces its roots to the time of the Greek philosophers. Western nations have popularized and practiced the democratic way of life, and they introduced democracy as a form of government. The main procedure of democracy is the selection of leaders by means of free elections of the people. Joseph Schumpeter (as cited in Huntington, 1955) wrote what he termed as “the classical theory of democracy,” wherein he explained that democracy emphasizes “the will of the people” and for “the common good.” He described democratic method as “that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote” (Huntington, 1955, p. 6). There was division among the theorists on the useful definition of democracy, but they concluded that the one with “empirical, descriptive, institutional, and procedural definitions” make democracy a useful one (Huntington, 1955, p. 7.) The twentieth-century political system that can be considered democratic has its decision makers or highest officials of the land elected through just, truthful, and regular elections wherein candidates are freely voted for by the people and the adult population is qualified for the voting process. Robert Dahl (as cited in Huntington, 1955) indicated that democracy or polyarchy promotes freedom of speech, publication, the right to an assembly, which are necessary for the conduct of free elections. South Korea’s Unique Democratization Authors like Kim (1993), Burton and Ryu (1997), and a host of other authors and researchers argue that the democratic transition of South Korea began with protests against an authoritarian regime. Protests become a revolutionary situation when state sovereignty is challenged and has become weak (Tilly 1978 as cited in Kim, 1996). Generally, the origins of protest stem from economic deprivation. Deprivation theory underscores substantive complaints of injustice, stimulating protest actions predicting demonstrations and rallies due to discontent from economic situations, which deprive citizens of the needed quality of life. This theory further states that injustice, joblessness, poverty, and low standards of living are the main causes of rebellion (Gupta 1977; Gurr 1970; Muller, 1972; Muller, Dietz & Finkel 1991; Walton 1984; Walton & Ragin 1990 as cited in Kim, 1996). Historical background After the Korean War in 1950 to 1953, the Chayudang Party under Rhee was determined to stay in power, but Rhee amended the constitution to allow himself to run for another term, and in the 1956 and 1958 elections, Rhee won 56 percent of the popular vote, which was quite lower than he first won power. After two years, the ruling party was losing control of the National Assembly. The Rhee regime tried to show that it was existing based on democratic ideals, promoting freedom of the press and the electoral system, but in truth, it was a repressive regime. The government imposed censorship, shutting up publications and the people’s freedom of expression, igniting more dissent and discontent. In the early 1960s, the number of universities in South Korea grew, and so university population also increased, adding more students to protest against the government or talk about national politics. The students were more concerned of the implementation of democratic principles, rather than of changing the system of government. They admired and preferred the Western style of democracy, which enhanced economic development for the Western states. They supported their contention with ‘their own educational experience, which emphasized achievement, competitive standards of merit, and equality of opportunity’ (Kim, 1996, p. 1186). These principles were against the traditional principles of the controlling elite and those in government. The protest eruption was sudden and unexpected by the people. Tens and thousands of students coming from middle school, high school and university students gathered and assembled in the streets of Seoul to ask for the resignation of the country’s first president, Syngman Rhee. What only started as political rallies and protests, characterized by activism among youths, intellectual, and politicians from two parties, became a rebellion (Kim, 2012). Street demonstrations and rallies exacerbated due to obvious election anomalies perpetrated by political parties, enhanced repression, and utter political terrorism, which was made with the pretext of controlling communism. Rhee’s political party bannered the slogan that his re-election was the only way to counter Communist North Korea. Election rigging was the last resort to challenge the now-strong opposition and the increasing public support. Major newspapers reported and fought against election cheating. Opposition members boycotted parliamentary sessions to stop Rhee’s party from winning the election by fraud. Nevertheless, political terror triumphed against the good guys and so election was rigged. Repression was further exacerbated as opposition party workers were brought to detention without formal charges. Many were denied access to some areas, pushed aside, and some were ‘silenced’ by people linked to those in power (Kim, 1996). As Huntington (1955) indicated, military coups, suppression of rights, rigged elections, harassment, silencing the opposition are not in consonance with the ideals of democracy. The students and civil society were decided to fight for democracy until the end. The situation angered more the students. Terrorism committed by the supposed trusted officials fanned the rebellion. Rigging an election violates the nation’s right to choose their leader. The authorities were supposed to enforce the law, but their violation of the law made them to commit disjunctive justice, a moral justification for a revolt (Kim 1996). The situation led to a series of protest movement spearheaded by the students. Large numbers of students formed groups, but many were already members of student organizations. They planned and mobilized other student groups for massive demonstrations. Seoul at that time had the biggest number of students, wherein 80 percent were from universities and 60 percent came from college students concentrated in the city (Kim 1996). Student leaders planned the demonstration for days, and then at the Korea University in Seoul, they gathered the students for a major demonstration, about 3,000 of them marched to the National Assembly building, to demand the cancellation of the past election and for the government to conduct a new and fair election. They were answered with clubs and chains by hoodlum gangs, identified as members of the Anti-Communist Youth League, but were actually supporters of the ruling party. On April 19, 1960, more than 50,000 students, representing major universities in Seoul, fought their way through police lines and demonstrated in front of the government buildings in the center of the city. Police fired their weapons, killing 20 students and injuring many. The protest movement was transformed into a violent rebellion. Demonstrations were organized in other cities, in Pusan, Taegu, Kwangju, Taejon, and there were riots and killing. The results included 186 persons killed and more than 1,600 injured. It was one reason for the government to declare martial law. The military took control of the city, but the people already lost their trust on the government, transforming the conflict into a revolutionary situation. University professors of Seoul supported the students and demanded Syngman Rhee’s resignation. More demonstrations, burning of houses of well-known politicians and threats of bigger mass actions forced President Rhee to resign on 27 April. Democracy triumphed ultimately, but it is still part of the beginning of South Korea’s democratic transition. This historical event is known in Korea’s history as the 4-19 Righteous Uprising or the 4-19 Revolt. It showed the role of students and civil society in their fight against corruption and oppression of authorities. It also inspired subsequent student radicals to be vigilant and aware of any similar situations committed by people in government. However, this kind of revolt was limited to changes of leadership, policies and government in the dictatorship. The students were supported by some lower classes, including the working class and the unemployed, which became part of civil society. In 1961, General Park Chung Hee led a military coup to remove the new head of state, Prime Minister John Myun Chang. Later, Park resigned his military post but was elected president in 1963 until his assassination sixteen years later (Lee, 2008). In the 1980s, authoritarian rule once triumphed but was suppressed by forces with democratic ideals. Students, intellectuals, religious groups, workers, women’s groups, or the entire civil society, came out to form the formidable force against the authoritarian regime. These organizations would help define the nature of democratic consolidation (Lee & Glasure, 2007). Korea’s history is marred by authoritarian rule from 1948 until the democratic transition in 1987. All these were characterized by student power and citizen participation or civil society (Kim, 2012). April 19th established youth-led protest movements as a decisive factor in South Korean politics. Then in successive protests, the youth played a key role until the democratic transition of June 1987 (Kim, 2012). Since the country started to tread the path to democracy in 1987, various voluntary organizations have sprung up, involving in social and political exchanges to improve the Koreans’ way of life. Many voluntary organizations are now operating in the country, whose growth has triggered a high level of political activism (Lee, 2008). Korea’s Civil society Korean civil society influences government policies and programs. These past two decades, its actions have focused on public concerns. Civil society is perceived as a driving force for democratization and democratic consolidation. In the 1980s, civil society was instrumental to the fall of the authoritarian regime and the introduction of democratic elections (Armstrong, 2000 as cited in Oh, 2012). The civil society paradigm stresses that groups form along beliefs that express new and old horizontal solidarities, in particular grassroots religious organizations, labor unions, business groups, indigenous groups, among others. When there is public outcry on certain issues, civil society is there. For example, in the summer of 2008, civil society conducted candlelight vigils and led the protest against prospective imports of U.S. beef. The display of people power assembled about one million people from various socioeconomic backgrounds, highlighted by discussions in social media. Another civic action involved the coalition of progressive political parties, civic groups and social media discussion, focusing on the “People’s Action for Countermeasures against Mad Cow Disease”. The government could do nothing except to give in to the demands of civil society by halting U.S. beef imports (Oh, 2012, p. 528). The Role of Civil Society in Korea’s Democratization Civil society has enhanced people’s freedom of expression through political activities to influence government policies, promote fair elections, and protect “minority shareholder rights, healthcare reform, labor rights, and environmental protection” (Kalinowski, 2008 as cited in Oh, 2012, p. 529). Oh (2012) still argues that despite the presence of a stronger civil society, this has not generally affected the relations of state and society in Korea. Despite democratization and the presence of a stronger civil society, associations have encouraged mass mobilization against certain government policies. However, there are still mass actions and protests since those from civil society are not included in major policy making. Lee (2008), using the concept of social capital, addressed the question of whether civic participation has affected the process of democratization among the Korean people. Lee also dealt on the questions: What happened to civil society in the course of democratization? To what extent do Koreans participate in voluntary associations? In answering these questions, Lee used the Korea Democracy Barometer (KDB) surveys, conducted in 1996 and 2004, with samples 1,000 and 1,037 respectively. The surveys focused on two social capital components and helped to trace their dynamics in the course of time. KDB 2004 survey has a way of known the link of the two components of social capital and the way the Korean people react to democracy (Lee, 2008). Social capital, according to Lee (2008), is “concurrence of objective features of society (network structure) with a subjective social norm (social trust)” (p.582). This definition allows for a wide-ranging and active explanation for the link between “civic activism and democratic citizenship”. Moreover, it permits for exploring whether involvement in voluntary associations creates positive results for the growth of democratic attitudes and behaviour among Koreans. Social capital has become popular and this has been widely used by scholars in social science in defining various societal issues. They argued that social capital has greatly affected different social phenomena or political issues such as economic development, right of suffrage, education, governance issues, democratic citizenship, and trust in government institutions (Lee, 2008, p. 582). However, social capital has no clear definition, despite its wide applications. But in pursuing the principles of social capital, researchers have used quantitative and qualitative methods. Additionally, scholars applied the concept at the different levels of analysis. In our explanation of this paper’s question, in the early part of this proposal, we provided Putnam’s theory of social capital, which has made strides in the discussion about association and its benefits in the attainment of democracy. Putnam (1993 as cited in Lee, 2008) explained in his essay Making Democracy Work, that social capital is significant in the context of why northern Italy had a more effective government than southern Italy. Putnam further stressed that social capital is critically associated with political participation and effective governance. He drew theories from Bourdieu and Coleman about civic participation in voluntary associations, which inspire the standards of reciprocity and enhances the building of faith in one another and collaboration among people (Lee, 2008). Putnam’s work measures social capital with a single index, along with social norms and objective features of society. The notion of social capital is measured by combining social trust and social networks but also taking into account weighting procedures. This concept of social capital has been criticized for not giving distinctions between the different types. But Putnam’s comparative work about southern and northern Italy reveals that more cooperation is produced by regions with trust and greater “foundations of horizontal networks” (Putnam, Leonardi, & Nanetti, 1993 as cited in Lee, 2008, p. 583). Can social capital affect democracy? Social capital can enhance democracy, first, by facilitating the installation of democratic regimes from non-democratic ones. Second, social capital can help improve performance of existing democracies, promote people’s rights and encourage government people and authorities to do their part in nation building through democratic principles. In doing this, people’s associations reduce the tendency of authorities to oppress citizens directly, and they provide a space for growth. Ordinary citizens are inspired and encouraged to oppose authoritarian rule. There is a free flow of ideas and cooperation among the people. Voluntary associations encourage the populace to embrace and cherish democracy. The social capital theory of democratization encourages the citizens to relate with each other and the authorities. The government too motivates the people to help in nation building. The structural component of social capital emphasizes the direct link among the citizens through a network of voluntary associations and groups. Social capital is important for democracy, in the democratization process and in maintaining that democracy, because it helps in allowing democratic institutions to work. Voluntary associations and social engagement are “training ground for democracy” (Lee & Glasure, 2007, p. 103). However, social capital does not exist in all areas of society and access to it depends on the social location of individuals or groups of people. Factors like geographic and social isolation may restrict the structural availability of social capital, for example, lack of resources or funds and lack of connectivity. In Putnam’s concept, education is the strongest link between trust and organizational membership as educational attainment provides people to experience more diverse social relations, and gain access to wider networks of weak ties, thereby increasing social capital. Moreover, the idea of interpersonal or social trust is most important in the relationship between social capital and democracy. A stronger civil society can provide trust in the chain of democratic development by forming associational involvement into trust of people of different orientation (Lee & Glasure, 2007). Social capital is important in the political stability of a state. In Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba’s (1963 as cited in Lee & Glasure, 2007) work, associational involvement became a trend and considered important to analyzing democratic attitudes and civic involvement of people of a particular country. The authors provided concepts from the philosophy of Tocqueville, arguing that members of associations are more politically aware and involved in political issues. Inside organizations, citizens learn to discuss and debate about issues, allowing them to support democratic principles and norms. Being a member of a voluntary organization, one can acquaint himself/herself with other politically aware people. This can motivate their political awareness. Associational members, even if non-political associations, show higher level of political competence and participation than ordinary citizens. Putnam introduced associational involvement as an indicator of the presence of social capital stocks. However, there is no assurance that involvement in all kinds of associations effects on political participation, or whether participation in only some community associations causes political participation. Absence of social capital, even lack of it, results in government mistrust and a ground for protest (DiFranceisco & Gitelman, 1984 as cited in Lee & Glasure, 2007). Conclusion The third wave of democratization started with the Portuguese coup d’etat to depose the existing authoritarian regime. This spread to many parts of the world; small countries run by despots followed and installed their own democratic governments, with the help of the people (or people power) and supported by discontented and idealistic military personnel. South Korea’s democratic transitions are unique in the sense that Korean activities are characterized by continual involvement of civil society and voluntary organizations. Civil society in the Korean experience is perceived as the vanguard of democracy, continues to influence policy-making and promotes people’s participation through public awareness and policy debate on important issues pertaining to public concerns and governance. The democratic is sustained and continuous and cannot be left open. The people are socially and politically aware because they do not want a repeat of the authoritarian regime they experienced in the past. References Armstrong, C. (2007). Korean society: Civil society, democracy and the state. New York: Routledge. Diamond, L. & Kim, B. (2000). Consolidating democracy in South Korea. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. Haggard, S. (1998). Business, politics and policy in East and Southeast Asia. In H. Rowen (ed.), Behind East Asian growth: The political and social foundations of prosperity, pp. 78-104. New York: Routledge. Heo, U. & Roehrig, T. (2010). South Korea since 1980. New York: Cambridge University Press. Huang, X. (2011). The political and economic transition in East Asia: Strong market, weakening state. New York: Routledge. Huntington, S. (1955). The third wave: Democratization in the late 20th century (ebook). Available through Kindle. Kim, C. (2012). Moral imperatives: South Korean studenthood and April 19th. The Journal of Asian Studies, 71(2), 399-422. doi: 10.1017/S0021911812000095 Kim, Q. (1996). From protest to regime: The 4-19 revolt and the fall of the Rhee regime in South Korea. Social Forces, 74(4), 1179-1209. Kim, S. (2010). Collaborative governance in South Korea: Citizen participation in policy making and welfare service provision. Asian Perspective, 34(3), 165-190. Kwak, K. (2012). Media and democratic transition in South Korea. New York: Routledge. Lee, A. & Glasure, Y. (2007). Social capital and political participation in South Korea. Asian Affairs, an American Review, 34(2), 101-111, 113-118. Lee, J. (2008). Path toward democracy in South Korea: social capital and democracy embedded in the citizens. Asian Survey, 48(4), 580-602. doi: AS.2008.48.4.580 Oh, J. (2012). Strong state and strong civil society in contemporary South Korea. Asian Survey, 52(3), 528-549. doi: AS.2012.52.3.528 Rowen, H. (1998). Behind East Asian growth: The political and social foundations of prosperity. London: Taylor & Francis e-Library. London: Routledge. Seungsook, M. (2002). Carving out space: Civil society and the women’s movement in South Korea. The Journal of Asian Studies, 61(2), 473-499. Sidel, J. (2012). The fate of nationalism in the new states: Southeast Asia in comparative historical perspective. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 54(1), 114-144. doi: 10.1017/S0010417511000612 Read More