Democratization Patterns in Taiwan and South Korea - Case Study Example

NAME : XXXXXXXXXX TUTOR : XXXXXXXXXX TITLE : XXXXXXXXXXX COURSE : XXXXXXXXXX INSTITUTION : XXXXXXXXXX @2010 Democratization Patterns in Taiwan and South Korea Introduction Democracy is a political system which ensures free and fair elections. People are allowed to choose their own leaders and have the right and capability to make opposition the new government. Democracy also means having such civil liberties as freedom of speech and press and equality before the law1. Taiwan and South Korea are generally acknowledged as the two most thriving third-wave democracies in Asia2. The two democracies have frequently held free and competitive elections at all levels of their respective governments for over a decade. Citizens are allowed to select the heads of the executive branches and members of the legislatures through commonly scheduled election competitions, at both national and local levels. Moreover, the two countries have peacefully transferred authority to opposition parties, the Democratic Progressive Party in Taiwan and Millennium Democratic Party in Korea, centrally to many countries in the area. There is no doubt that the political regimes of Taiwan and Korea completely satisfy the democratic principle of popular sovereignty marked by free and fair elections, multiparty contest and universal adult suffrage3. This paper will compare the democratization patterns in Taiwan and South Korea. The fist part will discuss the similarities, whereas the second part will discuss the differences of the democratization patterns in both countries. The last part will look at the lessons which we can learn from the democratization patterns of both countries. Similarities Democracy emerged out of economically successful authoritarian regimes, in both Taiwan and Korea. Authoritarian dictators pulled out of power after achieving the historic mission of economic development, the democratic transition was caused by ‘crisis of success”. After achieving economic development, these leaders became historically archaic and had to be substituted by new democracy to satisfy new requirements of the people for more freedom and more wellbeing for the masses. Economic growth with good future prospects and equality of opportunity is quite vital for democratization4. The authoritarian governments in both countries encouraged growth with at least some reduction in the inequalities between the rich and the poor. South Korea and Taiwan were both Japanese colonies. The Japanese colonial experience contributed to the democratization process in both countries in three ways; the strong Japanese bureaucratic rule set up patterns of administration that the postwar governments were capable of utilizing, therefore improving their effectiveness; national consciousness among all sectors in both countries was increased; and the economical, social and educational sectors advanced in the both countries5. To demonstrate their modernization to the Western power, the Japanese tried to make Taiwan and Korea model colonies. As a result, they created incisive administrative systems supported by well-built police forces. Both countries eradicated diseases and significantly improved public health, leading to reduction in death rates. They also broadened the scope of education, constructed advanced infrastructure of roads, railroads, harbors, telegraph, telephone and postal systems. They improved agriculture with modern seeds and constructed irrigation schemes. At the end of the Japanese colonial rule, Taiwan and Korea had achieved higher standards of living. Both Taiwan and South Korea had authoritarian governments. The dictator government in both regimes was violent. In Taiwan it led to death of 28,000 Taiwanese. In South Korea fewer persons were arrested and executed for political crimes than the Taiwan government did though in the streets it proved to be more deadly. During the postwar period, both Taiwan and South Korea authoritarian governments implemented a number of parallel strategies for economic development and accomplished a few similar objectives. For instance, both began with import substitution industrialization and afterward moved to export-oriented industrialization in the 1960s6. As a result, they experiences increased gross national product (GNP). Both countries also attained substantial social mobility. Many people shifted from agriculture to industry and moved from the farm to the city. In both countries, girls started to work in factories to earn their dowries and to get their brothers to university. Though Taiwan moved faster, both countries moved toward greater equality in income. They both emphasized the significance of education and greatly facilitated the educations of the two populations. The two regimes encouraged high levels of education due to the official Confucianism that dictatorial leaders in both Taiwan and South Korea promulgated in order to preserve discipline in their societies. In Korea, education played a significant role in the formation of Korean nationalist consciousness, which was resentfully ant-Japanese. Education also instills people with vital skills connected to political involvement and belief in their capacity to shape government. In both Taiwan and South Korean, higher educational levels of their citizens have contributed to their smooth democratic transitions7. However, it is important to note that the education progress in Korea was slower due to the short colonial period. Democratization process took place at similar times in both Taiwan and South Korea. They both went through shock from the fall of Ferdinard Marcos in early 1986 to “people power”. As a result the both regimes felt less secure. This process was initiated by the key people in the authoritarian regime of both countries. However, they were some differences like Soeul Olympics in 1988 worried South Korea but Taiwan did not face the problem. In both Taiwan and South Korea, the Japanese colonial governments and the postwar authoritarian governments gave citizen limited experience with voting, however, in no case did elections threaten the ruling government. The Japanese colonial rule allowed only a small population of Taiwan and Koreans who paid adequate tax to vote in limited elections, whereas the postwar authoritarian regimes in both countries introduced limited election with universal suffrage. Taiwan had several local elections but very few central elections, whereas Korea abolished local elections in 1961 but continued with controlled central elections. Because citizens in both countries were familiar with the electoral processes, they demanded for wide electoral reform prior to democratization8. The democratic transition would be smooth if reformers have relative power than standpatters in authoritarian governments and moderates have relative more power than radicals among the opposition. This was the case in both Taiwan and South Korea. Chiang Ching-Kuo was a reformers and supported liberal, whereas the opposition had many moderates and few radicals as is evident through their nonviolent approach. Chiang Ching-Kuo regularly created links with moderate opposition leaders such as Kang Ning-hsiang either personally or through his key subordinates. KMT had developed more formal consultation procedures by the end of Chiang Ching-Kuo’s life. Though the links between government and opposition are less obvious in South Korea, some communication between the authoritarian and their opponents did occur. For instance, during the dictatorial periods, the opposition political parties did acquire rationally great numbers of seats in the National Assembly and the national legislature, despite the electoral controls9. Differences The political party in Taiwan has been strong than civil society. The KMT, a Leninist Party, had strong organization and stiff control over party members and constituencies. Although KMT government permitted local elections, political freedoms were not granted to original Taiwanese people apart from people from mainland. Hence, the drive for democratic transition in Taiwan came from within the regime, KMT. The death of Chang Kai created internecine conflict and split within KMT and Chang Chin Kuo at last commenced the gradual democratization from above. On the other hand, the democratization process in South Korea was characterized by “transplacement”. It was a combination of democratization from below and above. Contrary to Taiwan, the political parties in South Korea were weak whereas civil society was strong10. In terms of ethnic homogeneity, South Korean is more homogenous than Taiwan. Therefore, after democratic transitions, Korean democracy was lucky enough not to experiencing ethnic conflict in the post-transition period as opposed to many countries in East Europe. Ethnic homogeneity in South Korea has also promoted high degree of social conformism and hence hindered the development of pluralism, diversity in ideas and tolerance of diverse beliefs, view and values. Social conformism facilitated the perseverance of Neo-Confucian patrimonialism, ideological orthodoxy like” Ssakkalron”. Ethic homogeneity, therefore, does not always lead to democratic consolidation and excellent democracy, but is also an obstacle to development of a pluralist liberal democracy with tolerance, respect for others, diversity and agreeing to disagree. On the other hand, the major political cleavage in Taiwan politics has come out to be ethic heterogeneity11. However, cooperation and consensus among different ethnic was harder in post-transition era and it is feared that the economic hardship stemming from global financial crisis may step up distributional struggles and deteriorates the ethnic problems. Economic development nature in Taiwan and South Korea also had significant differences. Large-scale industries in Taiwan remained in government’s hands. Most industrialization in Taiwan took place in small and medium-sized firms. South Korea’s great private chaebols dominated the economy; however these were connected to the government. In both regimes reserved labor though in Taiwan employment in small firms was easily gained by the labor activist, while in South Korea black-listing was more effective12. The different economic development reflected key differences in political regimes. The different South Korean postwar dictator regimes were Korean. “Chinese” and “colonial” best describes the Taiwan postwar dictator regime rather than Taiwanese. South Korean authoritarian had a military government and power was through coups d’etat. Taiwan’s government remained basically civilian and military and the security were not threatening to the rule of the Chiangs. Until the death of Chiang ching-kuo in early 1988, Taiwan had only one regime, whereas South Korea had five different republics, with each having its own constitution There was a variation in voting system of the two regimes. In South Korea local elections were abolished by the government in 1961, however the central government continued to have elections but they were controlled. In 1994 the local elections were restored after democratization. In 1950s that is the period when elections were implemented in Taiwan. They virtually had no elections other than “supplementary” elections after 1969 till after democratization in the 1990s13. Chiang Ching-kuo had liberal components in his leadership. He encouraged the education of many Taiwanese and younger educated persons to enter top leadership, though he ensured these persons do not threaten his ultimate power. On the other hand, the park Chung-hee government did have a small number of liberal advisors14. Taiwan has had an opposition that uses nonviolent methods to support its call for democratization. A good example is the nonviolent action taken by the opposition party in response to the government killings in 1947 February 28. On the other hand, South Korea has had more violence both from the government and from the opposition. The authoritarian regimes were fast to imprison rivals and fired on protesters with live bullets. A good example is the two hundred people who were killed during the Kwangju Uprising of May 198015. Interest group membership is associated with political competence. The KMT authoritarian government formed several popular associations, which involved a large variety of Taiwan’s citizens and this widespread membership did ease Taiwan’s transition to democracy. On the other hand, South Korea had few formal popular associations. While South Korea allowed such associations, it maintained strict control from the highest levels of government down to the rural associations16. Lesson learnt Despite the optimism of 1990, democracy still continues to be rare in Asia. Therefore, the experience of the democratization processes of Taiwan and South Korea, the only successful third-wave democracies in Asia, teaches us a lot. We learn that there are factors which can influence the democratization process. These factors include; colonial experience; education; experience with authoritarian elections, economic development, links between government and opposition, popular associations and interest group activity, a nonviolent opposition and liberals in authoritarian government. Most third world countries can benefit a lot from the experiences of both South Korea and Taiwan as they can focus on these factors to improve their democracies. Conclusion The democratization patterns in Taiwan and South Korea have several similarities. Both countries had an overlay of confuciasm, Japanese colonial experience, authoritarian regimes, higher levels of education and experience economic development. However, the democratization processes in both countries had some differences; Taiwan had many reformers in its authoritarian regime, a nonviolent opposition and considerable popular association activity, factors not evident in South Korea. Overall, the factors which facilitate democracy exceeded those which hinder democracy in both countries and hence, their prospects for democracies to continue to mature remain high. Bibliography Bruce, Jacob. 2007. Taiwan and South Korean: Comparing East Asia’s two third-wave democracies. Issues and studies, 43(4):227-260. Chu, Yun-han, Larry Diamond and Doh Chull Shin. 2001. Halting progress in Korea and Taiwan,” Journal of Democracy 12: 122-136. Coppedge, Michael. 1997. Modernization and threshold of democracy,” in M. Midlarsky, ed., Inequality, democracy and economic development. New York: Cambridge University Press. Diamond, Larry and marc platter, eds. 1998. Democracy in Asia. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. Haggard, Stephan and Robert R. Kaufman. 1995. The political economy of democratic transitions. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Huntington, Samuel P. 1991. The third Wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century. Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press. Huntington, Samuel P. 1997. “Democracy for the Long Haul.” In Larry Diamond, Marc Platter, Yun-han Chu and Hung-mao Tien eds. Consolidating the third world democracies; Themes and perspectives. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Kihl, Young Whan. 2005. Transforming Korean politics: Democracy, reform and culture. Armonk, New York and London: M.E. Sharpe. Lee, Hong Yung. 1993. South Korea in 1992: A turning point in democratization”. Asian Survey 33, no. 1: 32-42. Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press. Powell, Jr., G. Bingham 2000. Elections as instrument of democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press. Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making democracy work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Shim, Doh Chull and Jason Wells. 2005. Challenge and change in East Asia: Is democracy the only game in town? Journal of Democracy 16 (2): 88-101. Tsurumi, E. Patricia. 1977. Japanese colonial education in Taiwan, 18955-1954. Cambridge, Mass and London: Harvard University Press. Whitehead, Laurence. 2002. Democratization: Theory and experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wu, Jaushieh Joseph. 1995. Taiwan’s democratization: Forces behind the new momentum. Hong Kong, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Read More