This book analyses democratization and democracy in South Korea since 1960. The book starts with an analysis of the distinctive characteristics of bureaucratic authoritarianism and how democratic transition had been possible after inconclusive and protracted “tug of war” between authoritarian regime and democratic opposition. It then goes on to explore what the opportunities and constraints to the new democracy are to be a consolidated democracy, how new democracy had changed the industrial relations in the post-transition period, how premodern political culture such as Confucian patrimonialism and familism had obstructed democratic consolidation, and the improvement of quality of democracy. The author compares empirically, from the perspective of a comparative political scientist, political regime superiority of democracy over authoritarianism with regard to economic development. He concludes that “democratic incompetence” theory has been proven wrong and, in South Korea, democracy has performed better than authoritarian regimes in terms of economic growth with equity, employment, distribution of income, trade balance, and inflation. This book will benefit political scientists, development economists, labor economists, religious sociologists, military sociologists, and historians focusing on East Asian history.

Table of contents

A review of the dilemmas, tensions and contradictions arising from democratic consolidation in South Korea. It explores the turbulent features of Korean democracy in its first decade, assesses the progress that has been made, and identifies the key obstacles to effective democratic governance.

South Korea has been seen by many as an exceptionally successful case among the late capitalist states that sought to achieve both economic development and democratization. In contrast, Democracy After Democratization, which examines the history of South Korean politics and democracy, starts with the startling diagnosis that South Korean society has actually undergone a qualitative change for the worse since the democratic transition of 1987. To explain these controversial aspects of South Korean democracy, author Jang-Jip Choi investigates the structural conditions and historical constraints of its early development and the changes that have occurred since then. Instead of pursuing a chronological narrative or a formalistic explanation, Choi adopts an issue-oriented approach that combines criticism with alternative solutions proposed through theoretical application and extensive comparative analysis. The relevance of Democracy After Democratization is not confined to a single East Asian country but also illuminates the global problems of post-industrial democracy as well as the general impact of Cold War anti-communism and neoliberal globalization on domestic politics and democracy. Book jacket.

What role did civil society play in Korea's recent democratization? How does the Korean case compare with cases from other regions of the world? What is the current status of Korean democratic consolidation? What are the prospects for Korean democracy?In December 1997, for the first time in the history of South Korea (hereafter Korea), an opposition candidate was elected to the presidency. Korea became the first new democracy in Asia where a horizontal transfer of power occurred through the electoral process. Sunhyuk Kim's study of democratization in Korea argues that the momentum for political change in Korea has consistently emanated from oppositional civil society rather than from the state. He develops a civil society paradigm and utilizes Korea's three authoritarian breakdowns (only two of which resulted in democratic transitions) to illustrate the past and present influences of Korean civil society groups on authoritarian breakdowns, democratic transitions, and post-transition democratic consolidations. One of the first systematic attempts to apply a civil society framework to a democratizing country in East Asia, The Politics of Democratization in Korea will be of use to political scientists and advanced undergraduate and graduate students working in comparative politics, political theory, East Asian politics, and the politics of democratization.

In 1987 South Korea began a democratic transition after almost three decades of significant economic development under authoritarian rule. Increased civil unrest caused by dissatisfaction resulted in the regime agreeing to constitutional changes in the summer of 1987. By 1992 the first president without a military background was elected and during his tenure a further deepening of democracy took place. These reforms were instrumental in making it possible that in 1997 for the first time in South Korean history an opposition candidate was elected president. This book examines the initial transition and later attempts at consolidating democracy in South Korea, and argues that although significant progress had been made and a power alternation achieved by late 1997, South Korea could not, by the end of that decade (1987-97), be considered a consolidated democracy.

While popular movements in South Korea rightly grab the headlines for forcing political change and holding leaders to account, those movements are only part of the story of the construction and practice of democracy. In Top-Down Democracy in South Korea, Erik Mobrand documents another part – the elite-led design and management of electoral and party institutions. Even as the country left authoritarian rule behind, elites have responded to freer and fairer elections by entrenching rather than abandoning exclusionary practices and forms of party organization. Exploring South Korea’s political development from 1945 through the end of dictatorship in the 1980s and into the twenty-first century, Mobrand challenges the view that the origins of the postauthoritarian political system lie in a series of popular movements that eventually undid repression. He argues that we should think about democratization not as the establishment of an entirely new system, but as the subtle blending of new formal rules with earlier authority structures, political institutions, and legitimizing norms.