The beauty of Korean democracy

gettyimagesbank

By David A. Tizzard

Many of us take democracy for granted, believing it to be the natural state of man or the logical progress of all and every society and culture around the world. Such beliefs, however, do not always conform to reality. Backsliding, single-party states, dictators and a whole host of other factors demonstrate that democracy is a variable rather than a fixed phenomenon. What was considered democratic practice in the past is no longer held so today. In the current age, states also differ in their degree of democracy.

So how do we measure democracy? How do we know if we are living in a democratic society today? How and when did South Korea transition from a feudal slave society, through colonization and authoritarian military rule, to a country that has some of the OECD's finest democratic practices today in just over a century? It's an important yet obviously very difficult question. Nevertheless, while platitudes and stereotypes remain somewhat ingrained in many, I would suggest that in 2022 South Korea's democracy is a marvelous thing and now superior in "some" ways to even that of its erstwhile political and economic supporter, the United States.

First, what is democracy? One of the most important characteristics of democracies is that rather than power, it is the protection of rights that is of prime concern: freedom of speech and the press, freedom of religion and conscience, freedom of assembly and association and the right to due process and fair trial. There also has to be competition for government positions and fair elections carried out without force. Citizens should participate in selecting their leaders. Those elected must then be responsive and accountable to the citizens. Civil and political liberties must exist to ensure safety and integrity.

How does democracy come about? Why, for example, is South Korea a democracy and North Korea not? And China? Russia? First, the historical period in which the transition comes as well as the type of regime it replaces matters. Early democratization took place in capitalist economies in which the rich (rather than other social groups) held power. Research also confirms that richer countries are "more likely" to be democratic. Some scholars, influenced by Marx, believe that the middle class is the carrier of democracy: "No bourgeoisie, no democracy." But it is not necessarily wealth that brings about democracy; instead, economic development reduces the likelihood of democratic breakdown. Beyond this, there is a correlation between education and democracy. Culture and the effects of colonialism play a role. As does the presence (or absence) of natural resources. Democratic neighbors and participation in international organizations can also help.

Why is South Korea a democracy? There is no simple answer to this, but broadly one could point to three factors: 1) Civil society and public consciousness expanding; 2) economic development and the rise of the middle class; and 3) the international environment and historical circumstance. This narrative includes, but is not exclusive to, the class conscious rise of the "minjung," the importance of Gwangju, the millions of people that took part in 1987 demonstrations moving the narrative from beyond students and activists to middle class workers, and the 88 Olympics which brought international attention. Women, workers, students, journalists, Christians and professors. Moreover, it was not always peaceful or achieved solely by candles. People rallied behind the symbols of Park Jong-cheol and Lee Han-yeol in their pursuit of freedom. There was suffering, violence, and death. Disruptive tactics in protests played a big role in the 1980s. The point is to suggest that you need people capable of democracy, a state ready for democracy, and an environment in which it can take place.

That's why I would respectfully disagree with former President Kim Dae-jung who once argued in his influential piece in Foreign Affairs that democracy was Korea's destiny. He got much else correct in that piece but his argument that South Korean democracy was inevitable does not quite sit right with me personally. It was hard fought and made ever more beautiful considering the periods of darkness from whence it arose, but it was not the only possibility this country faced. The people of South Korea have brought about democracy and a host of factors have contributed. Considering the country to north of the DMZ is yet to experience democracy, one might think of what particular aspects of South Korea's rise have not taken place there yet. Is it the lack of a middle class? The lack of a figure behind which to rally? The lack of consciousness, education, or political opposition?

As late as the mid-1990s, the streets of Seoul could be seen filled with tear gas and flaming Molotov cocktails as protestors and riot police engaged in violent clashes. Today, whatever your thoughts of the political candidates, South Korean politics is carried out without such dangers. Moreover, power changes hands (relatively) peacefully between opposition parties who have diametrically opposed views on North Korea and other issues. The voter turnout in the recent presidential election was over 77 percent. The young, the old, the rich, the poor, women and men, all turned out in great numbers. There was no apathy or stepping away from democracy believing it to be useless. People demonstrably believed in the process and the fairness. Automatic registration, early voting, national holiday, and polling places everywhere made it easy for people to vote rather than try to prevent them from doing so. Now that the results are in, with some groups vocally unhappy about the winner, there is no narrative that the opposition's victory was not fair or legal. The process is being respected, as it should.

Professor Ra Jong-il wrote a fabulous Korean-language piece recently in which he asserted that one's political opponents should not be seen as one's enemy. Instead, they are co-workers or colleagues with whom you disagree but nevertheless must work with in order to make the lives of the citizens better. The focus should never be solely on one's own party nor on working to hinder the progress of the opposition: it should be on the people. When the parties fight, the people suffer. If they can somehow work together despite their differences, the people will benefit.

South Korea is not a perfect society. It has many faults and flaws. But its democracy is beautiful. And so is its cleanliness, infrastructure, public transport, health system and, most importantly, its people. People that share different ideas, values and beliefs but who all live by the democratic process. An alternative to this, no matter how much you might disagree with others, would be tragic in my estimation.

Dr. David A. Tizzard (datizzard@swu.ac.kr) has a Ph.D. in Korean Studies and lectures at Seoul Women's University and Hanyang University. He is a social/cultural commentator and musician who has lived in Korea for nearly two decades. He is also the host of the Korea Deconstructed podcast, which can be found online. The views expressed in the article are the author's own and do not reflect the editorial direction of The Korea Times.