In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

167 Chapter Eight DEMOCRATIZATION IN SOUTH KOREA 1987–2000 THE SUDDEN CAPITULATION of the Chun government in the face of the massive demonstrations of June 1987 marked a major turning point in the evolution of South Korean democracy. Many viewed it as the beginning of true democracy in the South. Less optimistically, it might be more apt to consider it only the beginning of a process of democratization. In 1987 Korean society had yet to work out how a truly open, pluralist democracy might function. After all it is difficult to find any period in the history of South Korea when the democratic procedures and rights embedded in the often-amended constitution had not been overridden by authoritarian abuses perpetrated by both civilian and military dictators . But the exhortations of authoritarian governments for the population to exercise discipline and accept limits on their democratic freedoms in the name of economic development and national security had ceased to resonate long before 1987. With the death of Park Chung Hee in 1979, there emerged a broad-based conviction that the time had come to create an open democracy and to curb the excessive powers of the executive. This hope had been shattered by the military coup in late 1979 and the rise of Chun Doo Hwan to power in 1980. It was a testament to the power of authoritarianism that it took another seven years for the popular will, so evident in 1980, to manifest itself again. It is significant that democratization began at the behest of the government itself. Rho Tae Woo made enormous concessions in his Eight Point Declaration because he had to, but in doing so, he made sure that those in power would have a role in shaping how democratization would evolve. The nationwide crisis subsided rather quickly after his June 29 declaration. The concessions to introduce direct elections, a new press law, local autonomy, etc. satisfied the basic demands of the relatively conservative urban middle class that had tipped the balance in favor of popular reform. The more radical demands of students and labor leaders were relegated to the background. Negotiation between elites, of both the government and opposition parties, ensued over procedural issues for instituting direct elections and the restructuring of the Yushin constitution. Quickly the spotlight was directed toward a constitutional referendum and the promise of an open, direct election of a new president in the fall of 1987. But what of the demands for the freedom to organize labor, the institution of distributive justice, the elimination of the National Security Law, and the creation 168 Democratization in South Korea of a social welfare system that had also been a part of the protest agenda since the 1960s? How the new constitution and electoral procedures would serve the process of broader reform was still a question as the election of 1987 drew near. Procedural democracy does not necessarily mean that the goals of social justice will always be served. If the legal transfer of power through free and fair elections is democracy, then South Korea had democratized. But if democracy means a true sharing of power between all major constituencies in society, then South Korea was still in the process of democratizing. In the years remaining before the new century, the political process in South Korea matured. Society became much freer and political debate more open, but the drive to create a truly inclusive politics remained a work in progress. Over the next three administrations, those of Rho Tae Woo (1988–1993), Kim Young Sam (1993–1998), and Kim Dae Jung (1998–2003), the struggle to create a truly representative democracy continued to evolve. The struggle played out in a Korean society vastly transformed by thirty years of economic growth, massive urbanization, and new global influences. While conservative anti-Communist sentiment continued to resonate, new ideas—and new cultural influences in particular—also moved to center stage. In addition, a new debate emerged in the 1990s as a consequence of the rapid creation of wealth in South Korean society. How had successful economic development altered the lifestyles, but more importantly, the values of the average Korean? This question was compounded by the effects of South Korea’s complete insertion into global economic and cultural flows over the last thirty years. Indeed, globalization, the “World to Korea, Korea to the World,” as one government slogan expressed it, stimulated more questions about South Koreans’ social and cultural identity.1 The Elections of...

Share