Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T08:34:33.266Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - South Korea’s Weakly Institutionalized Party System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2014

Joseph Wong
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Allen Hicken
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Erik Martinez Kuhonta
Affiliation:
McGill University, Montréal
Get access

Summary

South Korea is hailed a model of political and economic modernization. A desperately poor country in the immediate post–World War II period, and one that suffered under Japanese colonialism and followed by a war that cemented the split on the peninsula between the North and South, South Korea has emerged to become one of the world’s richest economies. It boasts a diversified industrial economy, having achieved decades of rapid economic growth. And in the late 1980s, Korea began its transformation into a robust democracy, for which a democratic rollback is now virtually inconceivable. Its democracy was won when Korean society mobilized during the mid-1980s in waves of large-scale protests; the military regime responded by capitulating to demands for political change and by introducing real democratic reform almost immediately. Undoing the institutions of the prior military regime has taken time, to be sure, but Korea’s young democracy is deepening: former generals have been prosecuted, industrial barons have been constrained, electoral rules have been institutionalized, civil society remains invigorated and attitudes toward democracy have become more favorable over time. Alternations in power have also occurred regularly, such that the former dominant party, once backed by the military, has experienced and accepted electoral defeat, and opposition candidates and parties have taken power in both the executive and legislative branches of government. The transfer of power between incumbent and challenging parties has by and large been smooth.

These successes notwithstanding, the process of democratic transformation in Korea has not come about without significant challenges that remain today. Chief among these challenges is democratic Korea’s political party system, which by most measures is considered to be weakly institutionalized. For instance, in their article on independent voters in Korea and Taiwan, Alexander Tan and his colleagues calculate that “independents” accounted for 48 percent of eligible Korean voters during the late 1990s, a decade after Korea’s democratic transition was initiated. What is more, the data used in that study were collected during the 1997 presidential election, at the time when perennial opposition candidate Kim Dae-Jung won the presidency, and when most observers noted a deepening partisan divide, at least rhetorically, among “conservative” and “progressive” parties and voters. Even so, despite the supposed ideological polarization of Korean electoral politics, which seemed to portend a more institutionalized party system, nearly half of those surveyed indicated that they do “not lean toward any parties.”

Type
Chapter
Information
Party System Institutionalization in Asia
Democracies, Autocracies, and the Shadows of the Past
, pp. 260 - 279
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amsden, Alice. 1989. Asia’s Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chao, Linda, and Myers, Ramon. 1998. The First Chinese Democracy: Political Life in the Republic of China on Taiwan. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, Tun-Jen. 2003. Political Institutions and the Malaise of East Asian New Democracies. Journal of East Asian Studies 3: 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, Mark. 1998. Troubled Tiger: Businessmen, Bureaucrats and Generals in South Korea. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Choi, Jang-Jip. 1993. Political Cleavages in South Korea. In Koo, Hagen (Ed.), State and Society in Contemporary Korea. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Dickson, Bruce. 1996. The KMT before Democratization: Organizational Change and the Role of Elections. In Tien, Hung-Mao (Ed.), Taiwan’s Electoral Politics and Democratic Transition: Riding the Third Wave. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Dix, Robert. 1992. Democratization and the Institutionalization of Latin American Political Parties. Comparative Political Studies 24(4): 488–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haggard, Stephan, and Kaufman, Robert. 1995. The Political Economy of Democratic Transitions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hirschman, Albert. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Im, Baeg-Im. 2011. The Origins of the Yushin Regime: Machiavelli Unveiled. In Kim, Byung-Kook and Vogel, Ezra (Eds.), The Park Chung Hee Era: The Transformation of South Korea. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Byung-Kook. 2008. Defeat in Victory, Victory in Defeat. In Friedman, Edward and Wong, Joseph (Eds.), Political Transitions in Dominant Party Systems: Learning to Lose. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kim, Sunhyuk. 1997. State and Civil Society in South Korea’s Democratic Consolidation: Is the Battle Really Over?Asian Survey 37(12): 1135–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koo, Hagen (Ed.). 1993. State and Society in Contemporary Korea. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Lee, Nam Hee. 2007. The Making of Minjung: Democracy and the Politics of Representation in South Korea. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Yoonkyung. 2006. Varieties of Labor Politics in Northeast Asian Democracies: Political Institutions and Activism in Korea and Taiwan. Asian Survey 46(5): 721–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mo, Jongryn. 1996. Political Learning and Democratic Consolidation: Korean Industrial Relations, 1987–1992. Comparative Political Studies 29(3): 290–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, Chung-In. 2009. South Korea in 2008: From Crisis to Crisis. Asian Survey 49(1): 120–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, Chung-in and Jun, Byung-joon. 2011. “Modernization Strategy: Ideas and Influences.” In Kim, Byung-kook and Vogel, Ezra (Eds.), The Park Chung Hee Era: The Transformation of South Korea. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Park, Chong-Min, and Shin, Doh Chull. 2006. Do Asian Values Deter Popular Support for Democracy in South Korea?Asian Survey 46(3): 341–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, Ito, and Wong, Joseph. 2008. Institutions and Institutional Purpose: Continuity and Change in East Asian Social Policy. Politics and Society 36(1): 61–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rigger, Shelley. 1999. Politics in Taiwan: Voting for Democracy. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seong, Kyuong-Ryung. 2000. Civil Society and Democratic Consolidation in South Korea: Great Achievement and Remaining Problems. In Diamond, Larry and Kim, Byung-Kook (Eds.), Consolidating Democracy in South Korea. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Shin, Doh Chull. 1999. Mass Politics and Culture in Democratizing Korea. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shin, Eui Hang. 2003. The Role of NGOs in Political Elections in South Korea. Asian Survey 43(4): 697–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, Dan, and Wong, Joseph. 2012. The Strength to Concede: Ruling Parties and Democratization in Developmental Asia. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, April, Chicago.
Steinberg, David. 1998. Korea: Triumph and Turmoil. Journal of Democracy 9(2): 76–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinberg, David, and Shin, Myung. 2006. Tensions in South Korean Political Parties: From Entourage to Ideology?Asian Survey 46(4): 517–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockton, Hans. 2001. Political Parties, Party Systems and Democracy in East Asia: Lessons from Latin America. Comparative Political Studies 34(1): 94–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, Alexander, Ho, Karl, Kang, Kyung-Tae, and Yu, Tsung-Chi. 2000. What If We Don’t Party? Political Partisanship in Taiwan and Korea in the 1990s. Journal of Asian and African Studies 35(1): 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toka, Gabor. 1997. Political Parties in East Central Europe. In Diamond, Larry et al. (Eds.), Consolidating the Third Wave Democracies: Themes and Perspectives. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Wong, Joseph. 2004a. Democratization and the Left: Comparing East Asia and Latin America. Comparative Political Studies 37(10): 1213–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, Joseph. 2004b. Healthy Democracies: Welfare Politics in Taiwan and South Korea. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wong, Joseph. 2012. Transitioning from a Dominant Party System to a Multi-Party System: The Case of South Korea. In De Jager, Nicola and Du Toit, Pierre (Eds.), Friend or Foe? Dominant Party Systems in South Africa: Insights from the Developing World. Tokyo: UN University Press.Google ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×