Regime Change-South Korea and Taiwan Compared - Research Paper Example

Regime Change-South Korea and Taiwan Compared al Affiliation Regime Change-South Korea and Taiwan Compared Jacobs notes that democracy is a critical aspect for the development of any country. Evidence worldwide shows that the key to economic growth and development of any country lies largely on the state of democracy. Nevertheless, establishing a democratic government has never been easy in many countries. In most cases, when the term democracy is used, many people think of being able to conduct free and fair elections. However, democracy is more than just conducting free and fair elections. It also involves establishing working democratic institutions and replacing autocratic regimes with new regimes that have respect for the rule of law. South Korea and Taiwan are some of the East Asian countries that have faced many challenges towards their democratization. In fact, South Korea and Taiwan share a lot as far as their democratization and regime changes are concerned. The aim of this document is to conduct a comparative study of the democratization of South Korean and Taiwanese political regimes. South Korea and Taiwan are some of the East Asia countries that have come a long way in so far as establishing democratic systems are concerned. The two countries certainly share a lot in common as far as their democratic histories are concerned. For one, the two countries were once ruled by autocratic regimes that curtailed the development of democracy. Nevertheless, the two countries fought very hard by establishing democratic institutions that have made them some of the best examples of democracies in the world. Secondly, both countries achieved their democracies after successful industrialization. Both countries shared a lot in common with regards to the roles they played in post-war foreign relations. Kihl (2005) notes that both Taiwan and South Korea were once anticommunist military outposts. Additionally, both Taiwan and South Korea were once dominated by the Japanese colonialists in the pre-war era. Therefore, in the global perspective, the two countries represent the latest examples of Western European-type modernization because the social changes that resulted from industrialization finally promoted the establishment of democratic systems and institutions in them. Although Taiwan and South Korea share a lot in common with regards to the democratization process, the two countries also differ in some areas. One area where the two countries differ is in the state of political stability. In this regard, history shows that South Korea has experienced many political changes compared to Taiwan. Some of the changes that have occurred wthin the South Korean political system include the creation and entrenchment of the autocratic regime to the modernization and democratization of the country. Therefore, although South Korea has become one of the most democratic countries in the world, it took the country many years of struggle to achieve the democracy. The establishment of a democratic government and institutions in the country has seen South Korea not only conduct free and fair elections, but also establish a stable political system and institutions that operate within the rule of law. Democracy in South Korea has been entrenched through the creation of systems that promote democracy and the rule of law. Not much changes, however, occurred in the Taiwan political system. This is because the Kuomintang has maintained power since the Chiang Kai-shek took power in 1949 (Paolino and Meernik, 2008). Since then, the party has ruled Taiwan to date, despite the fact that the constitution allows for multi-party democracy. Again, in Korea, the countrys constitution has been amended nine times since the creation of the Republic of Korea in 1948 and the subsequent establishment of a civilian government in 1990. As stated earlier, the establishment of a democratic South Korea was long and challenging. The first step taken by the Korean leaders to create a democratic government was witnessed in 1948 when the country’s first ever direct presidential election was held (Kihl, 2005). The election was preceded by intense political campaigns in which the opposition leader strongly championed the democratization of the country. When the elections were conducted, the opposition leader who had championed for the democratization of the country won by a landslide. This is after the opposition leader formed an alliance with the former government’s party. The win by the opposition leader resulted in the replacement of incumbents who had a military background. The realignment of the political parties resulted in the successful reorganization of Koreas political structure from authoritarian to civilian rule. In contrast, the democratization in Taiwan was rather slow as noted by Wu (1995). Although the constitution was amended to allow for multi-party politics and the Emergency Decree law that existed for decades was lifted it took Taiwan many years after the establishment of multi-party democracy that would allow the country to participate in a direct election of the president. In as much as the opposition party was formed in 1986, the opposition remained inactive until in 1994 when the Taiwanese were given a chance to hold an election to choose the president of choice through a popular vote. The successful election of a civilian president, in 1994 marked the last step toward the democratization of Taiwan (Wu, 1995). However, the implementation of the democratization of Taiwan government took place two years later, in 1996. It is clear from the analysis that the democratization of South Korea was relatively faster than the democratization in Taiwan. Fell, Klöter and Chang (2006) attribute this to the fact that South Koreans had political good will following the merger between the opposition party and the former ruling party, unlike in Taiwan where opposition parties were initially divided. The democratization of Korea and Taiwan also share certain aspects in common, especially the processes that led to the establishment of democracies in both countries. As earlier stated, both Korea and Taiwan were dominated by Japanese colonialists after the postwar. The persistent domination of the two countries by Japanese colonialists did not augur well with a section of Taiwanese and Korean citizens. As a result, citizens of the two countries began organizing themselves into political groups to advocate the rights of citizens. Historians are quick to note that the political atmosphere in both countries was highly charged in the postwar period. Nevertheless, because both countries were still under the rule of autocratic regimes that took power at the time the countries were being divided, both ended up being depoliticized. Subsequently, the political unrest that occurred under the autocratic regimes completely altered the political environment that characterized both Korea and Taiwan throughout the postwar era (Paolino and Meernik, 2008). The political differences that occurred in the two countries gave rise to the development of authoritarian governments that had no respect for human dignity and the rule of law. Historians note that anytime political differences emerged in both Korea and Taiwan; this caused a lot of tension for the autocratic regimes. Therefore, the persistent political differences in the two autocratic regimes are what defined the political characteristics of the democratization processes in the two countries. From this discussion, three variables that can be used to compare Korea and Taiwan emerge. These include political regimes, social cleavages and the national unification principle. The following sections will discuss each of these variables. Political Regimes As mentioned earlier, Taiwan is one of the countries that had been under the authoritarian regime before transforming itself into a democratic country. The most dominant characteristic of an authoritarian regime in Taiwan is the party-state feature (Jacobs, 2012). The Taiwanese authoritarian regime for a long time opposed the democratization of the country for fear of losing power. The authorities knew that if the country was allowed to be ruled through a democratic process, then they could easily be removed through a popular vote. The refusal of the authoritarian regime to allow the democratization of the country resulted in persistent conflicts between the KMT and the anti-KMT forces. For instance, Paolino and Meernik (2008) reveal that the first political forces to criticize the KMT did so in the domestic election campaigns and subsequently in the charged political atmosphere associated with the election of more members of the Taiwanese parliament. Reports indicate that these dissenting political voices did so in a very well-coordinated manner, repeatedly testing the limits within which KMT could tolerate them. Therefore, to achieve the democracy that they had been clamoring for, the politicians decided to form a formidable new opposition party to break away the KMTs single party system that monopolized the political system of Taiwan. A breakthrough occurred in the 1960s when the local anti-KMT group calling branding themselves nonpartisan managed to get a representative in the Taiwan Provincial Assembly. About a decade later, in the 1970s, another group calling itself "party outsider" whose main agenda was to promote the democratization of Taiwan emerged (Wu, 1995). The group made inroads not only in the countrys local assemblies, but also in parliament. The new group later formed an alliance with new journalists known as tangwai journalists to carry out a strong and well-coordinated election campaigns against the KMT. Alliance enabled the tangwai forces successfully to form the first ever opposition party in Taiwan under the KMT regime. They named the opposition party, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) towards the middle of the 1980s (Paolino and Meernik, 2008). The creation of the DPP effectively marked a big step toward multi-party democracy in Taiwan that had long been under the rule of autocratic regimes. On the other hand, the most outstanding features of the Korean military authoritarian rule were Park Chung-hee and his successors, such as the Chun Doo-hwan (Diamond and Kim, 2000). Historians note that after the coup that occurred in Korea in the early days, the military seized power and became the political elite who did not tolerate any opposition to their rule. Therefore, the first step towards democratizing Korea involved the formation of a movement whose aim was to compel the military men who had ascended to power through a military coup to withdraw from the countrys politics. Unlike in Taiwan, where the major task was to form a formidable opposition party, the main task for the Korean democratic forces was to continue exerting pressure on the authoritarian government to democratize the country (Kim, 2003). The key figures behind the Korean democratization movement were Kim Young-sam and Kim Dae-jung. Therefore, it is clear that the democratization processes followed in Taiwan and Korea differed in the sense that the Taiwanese focused on forming an opposition party while Koreans focused on pressurizing the autocratic regime to democratize the country. Social Cleavages Kihl (2005) reveals that, in both Korea and Taiwan, class politics remained suppressed for a very long time. During the authoritarian rule, it was illegal for a Korean or Taiwanese to engage in class politics. Therefore, despite the democratization of the countries and the active involvement of labor movements in the countries affairs, class parties were prohibited from taking part in parliamentary politics. This made it difficult for people to participate in the countrys political affairs in both countries. The denial of people the right to participate in class politics triggered a cold war in both Korea and Taiwan. Additionally, the exclusion of the Korean and Taiwanese by the autocratic regimes from participating in class politics triggered other forms of social conflicts, which had nothing to do with class divisions, which later degenerated into political contests in both countries. In Korea, for instance, the political contest triggered local antagonism while a similar political contest triggered provincial registry disagreement in Taiwan (Kim, 2003). Historians note that these were the disagreements that formed the basis for political mobilization in the process of democratization, shaking both Taiwanese and Korean autocratic regimes to their foundations. Unification Doctrine Both Korea and Taiwan are some of the worlds nation’s that were split. Historians reveal that after the successful achievement of autonomy from other nations that they were initially part of, the autocratic regimes in these two nations introduced rules that prohibited citizens from making any contact or communication with the parent countries. The Korean autocratic regime, for instance, made laws that barred its citizens from communicating or making contacts with the North Koreans (Brazinsky, 2009). However, during the democratization process, the citizens of both countries clamored for the respect of freedom of expression and social changes. The issue of political cleavages within the autocratic regimes regarding unification also came into the limelight in both states. Although the two countries managed to achieve the unification they had been clamoring for, Korean political elites appear to have taken the unification for granted. This is unlike in Taiwan where the unification has been taken with a lot of seriousness as it has resulted in the development of a sovereign state. In conclusion, democracy is a very critical aspect of any civilized society. Many countries faced many challenges in the quest to democratize their countries. Taiwan and South Korea are some of the East Asia countries that went through many challenges to achieving democracy. The countries were initially under the autocratic regimes that had no respect for human rights or the rule of law. Therefore, to democratize the countries, the political leaders had to work tirelessly to ensure that the authoritarian regimes are replaced with a government chosen by the people and for the people. These have ensured that the two countries become some of the best democracies in the world. References Brazinsky, G. (2009). Nation building in South Korea: Koreans, Americans, and the making of a democracy. New York, NY: ReadHowYouWant.com. Diamond, L. J., & Kim, B. (2000). Consolidating democracy in South Korea. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Fell, D., Klöter, H., & Chang, B. (2006). What has changed?: Taiwan before and after the change in ruling parties. Hong Kong: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. Jacobs, J. B. (2012). Democratizing Taiwan. Danvers, MA: BRILL. Kihl, Y. W. (2005). Transforming Korean Politics: Democracy, reform, and culture. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Kim, S.S. (2003). Koreas democratization. New York, NY: Cambridge University. Paolino, P. & Meernik, J. D. (2008). Democratization in Taiwan: Challenges in transformation. Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing. Wu, J. J. (1995). Taiwans democratization: Forces behind the new momentum. Oxford, OX: Oxford University Press. Read More