|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Thoughts on Democratic Change in a Divided Nation
| Article
# : |
10370 |
|
|
Section : |
Modern Thought
|
| Issue
Date : |
12 / 1986 |
7,926 Words |
| Author
: |
Chong Lim Kim
Chong Lim Kim is a professor and the director of the
department of political science at the University of Iowa. An
earlier version of this paper was given at a conference co-
sponsored by The World & I and Korean PWPA. |
No other issue is more salient in the politics of South Korea than the issue of the democratic reforms. This is true today as much as it was in the past, reflecting the persistence of widespread public aspiration for democratic rule. Seldom has the ideal of democracy ever been denied in the public pronouncements by the leaders of the past regimes. While they systematically thwarted democracy in their actions, they nevertheless tried to justify their undemocratic rules in the name of democracy. When it became clear that their rule deviated drastically from what we commonly understand as democracy, they called theirs "the Korean style" democracy.
Nearly forty years after the formation of the Republic, democracy still remains an elusive goal. Despite the persistence with which the Korean people have pressed for it, its attainment does not seem anywhere near. Why is it that democracy has failed to take root in Korea?
Democracy as a political process
Robert Lane's definition of democracy serves as a useful starting point. He states that "democratic politics embraces standard elements: competitive elections, a legitimate opposition, a relatively free (officially uncensored) press, and protection of minority rights" (Lane 1986, 383). Competition and institutional safeguards that permit its full plays are essential to democracy. The freer the competition between leadership groups in elections and in the market place of ideas and influences, the more democratic the process is. Competition produces three important political effects. It discourages any form of monopolistic control of power by a leader or an institution, making it possible to establish a pluralistic power structure. The second effect is responsive leadership. Leaders who depend on the continuing support of their followers for tenure in office are likely to pay close attention to the sentiments and views of their supporters. Competition is one of the principal mechanisms that generate alternatives in policy and candidates, permitting citizens a free choice from among the alternatives. There is, therefore, incentive for leaders to be responsive if they wish to remain in power. The third effect of competition is the expansion of economic and political opportunities for the populace. Through competition and because of it, a variety of views and interests, which might not otherwise he heard, gain a public forum, allowing for a broad base of society to be involved in various aspects of political life.
The presence of a legitimate opposition is another defining element of
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
