Consolidation of Democracy in South Korea?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ACTA UNIVERSITATIS STOCKHOLMIENSIS Stockholm Oriental Studies 21 CONSOLIDATION OF DEMOCRACY IN SOUTH KOREA? Gabriel Jonsson STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY 2014 © Gabriel Jonsson and Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis 2014 The publication is availabe for free on www.sub.su.se ISBN electronic version 978-91-87235-63-4 ISBN printed version 978-91-87235-64-1 ISSN 0585-3559 Department of Oriental Languages Stockholm University Stockholm 2014 Order AUS publications from : http://sub.su.se/online-shop.aspx Acknowledgements Firstly, I wish to extend my gratitude to those who have been kind enough to offer their assis- tance during the preparation of this book. This stimulating project would never have reached completion without two research visits to South Korea in 2010 and 2012. I therefore would like to acknowledge Torsten Söderbergs stiftelse [foundation] for providing research grants in 2010 and Magnus Bergvalls stiftelse [foundation] for providing research grants from 2011- 2012. A grant from Stiftelsen Lars Hiertas minne [The Lars Hierta Foundation] in 2013 is also greatly appreciated. In South Korea I wish to thank two former presidents of the Korea Institute for National Unification, PhD Suh Jae Jean and Kim Tae Woo, for allowing me to study at the institute. As a guest researcher, I benefited greatly from my affiliation with the institute in terms of colla- tion of relevant material and in establishing valuable contacts. The National Archive kindly provided the author photos of the five presidents who were in power from 1988-2013 and whose terms in office are the focus of this study. In addition, I wish to express my gratitude to anonymous readers of the manuscript. I also wish to thank my wife, Lee Hee-Sook, and my daughter, Rebecka Ye-mi, for their extraordinary patience towards me during the preparation of this book. Maria Hedman has my thanks for proofreading the whole text. Roberto Menkes has my thanks for his assistance concerning technical matters related to the project. Thank you one and all. Stockholm, February 10, 2014 Gabriel Jonsson Contents 1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose 4 1.2 Theoretical Framework 5 1.3 Method 9 1.4 Sources 9 1.5 Organization and Scope 10 1.4 Korean Names and Terminology 10 2. Democratization under Roh Tae Woo (1988-1993) 2.1 Introduction 13 2.2 The June 29, 1987 declaration and the December presidential elections 14 2.3 The ruling party loses the April 26, 1988 parliamentary elections 18 2.4 The 1990 three party merger 23 2.5 Conclusions 29 3. Democratization under Kim Young Sam (1993-98) 3.1 Introduction 32 3.2 Kim Young Sam wins the December 1992 presidential elections 33 3.3 One-man leadership and reform policies 34 3.4 The 1995-96 trials of ex-presidents Chun Doo Hwan and Roh Tae Woo 43 3.5 Introduction of controversial labor and security laws in 1996 49 3.6 Different evaluations of Korean politics 51 3.7 Conclusions 55 4. Democratization under Kim Dae Jung (1998-2003) 4.1 Introduction 58 4.2 Kim Dae Jung wins the December 1997 presidential elections 59 4.3 President Kim Dae Jung faces post-election challenges 60 4.4 The April 13, 2000 parliamentary elections 64 4.5 President Kim Dae Jung faces increasing difficulties 66 4.6 Different evaluations of Korean politics 70 4.7 Conclusions 74 5. Democratization under Roh Moo-hyun (2003-2008) 5.1 Introduction 77 5.2 Roh Moo-hyun wins the December 2002 presidential elections 78 5.3 The 2004 President Roh Moo-hyun impeachment case 81 5.4 Increasing impopularity of the Roh Moo-hyun administration 84 5.5 Different evaluations of Korean politics 85 5.6 Conclusions 91 6. Democratization under Lee Myung-bak (2008-2013) 6.1 Introduction 94 6.2 Lee Myung-bak wins the December 2007 presidential elections 95 6.3 The 2008 candlelight demonstrations 97 6.4 Democratic setbacks in 2008, 2009 and 2011 100 6.5 Gloomy evaluations of Korean politics 103 6.6 Conclusions 110 2 7. Conclusions 7.1 Definitions of democratic consolidation versus reality 112 7.2 Democratic consolidation versus inauguration addresses and the Constitution 116 7.3 The impact of the president’s single five year term on politics 118 Appendix Appendix I Map of South Korea 121 Appendix II Chronology 1987-2012 122 Appendix III Elections 1987-2012 128 a) Presidential elections, 1987-2012 128 b) Parliamentary elections, 1988-2012 128 c) Local elections, 1995-2010 129 Appendix IV President Roh Moo-hyun’s suicide note, May 23, 2009 130 Appendix V The National Security Law 131 Biography 138 Index 146 Acronyms ANSP Agency for National Security Planning (formerly KCIA) BBC British Broadcasting Corporation DJP Democratic Justice Party DLP Democratic Labor Party, Democratic Liberal Party DP Democratic Party DSC Defense Security Command FTA Free Trade Agreement GNP Grand National Party IMF International Monetary Fund KCIA Korean Central Intelligence Agency LFP Liberal Forward Party MDP Millennium Democratic Party NCNP National Congress for New Politics NDRP New Democratic Republican Party NEC National Election Commission NIS National Intelligence Service (formerly KCIA, ANSP) NKP New Korea Party NSL National Security Law NPP New Party by the People NTA National Tax Administration OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development PK Pusan-South Kyôngsang province PPD Party for Peace and Democracy RDP Reunification and Democracy Party TK Taegu-North Kyôngsang province UDP United Democratic Party ULD United Liberal Democrats UN United Nations UNCHR United Nations Commission on Human Rights UNP Unification National Party UPP United Progressive Party U.S. United States 3 1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose Since 1987 South Korea has been regarded worldwide as a democracy.1 There is no doubt that the introduction of democracy has created a better image of the country around the world, but it is another matter how democracy in Korea has actually worked. Consequ- ently, the purpose of this work is to investigate whether democratic consolidation has been achieved or not during the past 25 years. In other words, did the quality of democracy im- prove or not? Korea adopted its present constitution on October 29, 1987. The president is elected by the people through a universal, equal, direct, and secret ballot. The term of office is five years and re-election is impossible. Following the opposition’s wish for a four-year term for the president with the option to run for a second term and the government’s wish for a single six-year term, they agreed on a one five-year term. The reason was that the First Re- public (1948-1960) and Third Republic (1963-1972) which had begun with two four-year periods for the president had become dictatorial systems due to constitutional amendments. According to the Korean scholar Lee Jung Bock (2008), since the main wish of the peo- ple in 1987 was to prevent long-term rule of the president and to accomplish a democratic power transfer, there was hardly anyone who raised objections to the five-year limit. Lee (2009) also asserts that a one five-year term for the president was not the will of the Ko- rean people but a consequence of the wishes of Kim Dae Jung and Kim Young Sam who both wanted to become president even if one of them failed to become elected. If a two- term mandate had been implemented, only one of them would have been elected president. Both wished to have a chance to get elected. Since the Constitution may be regarded as a guideline for how the Korean political sys- tem should ideally work and no one, to the author’s knowledge, has analyzed the relation- ship between the Constitution and subsequent political developments, except for the impact on the president’s power, three articles are relevant to assess the degree of democratic con- solidation. Firstly, Article 1:1 states: “The Republic of Korea is a democratic republic.” Se- condly, Article 8:2 says: “Political parties must be democratic in their objectives, organi- zation, and activities, and have the necessary organizational arrangements for the people to participate in the formation of the political will.” Thirdly, Article 21:1 prescribes: “All citi- zens enjoy the freedom of speech and the press, and of assembly and association.”2 With this background, the purpose of this study is to investigate whether post-1987 poli- tical developments fulfill the requirements of democratic consolidation or not from three points of view. Firstly, the issue is analyzed on the basis of definitions of democratic con- solidation presented in section 1.2: How do political developments correspond with them? In relevant cases, the definitions will be applied on the empirical account but otherwise in conclusions or in both. Since the president is the center of Korea’s political system and 1 South Korea is hereafter labelled Korea with the exception of quotations and contexts in which North Korea is mentioned. For a map of provinces and cities see Appendix I. 2 Robert Bedeski, The Transformation of South Korea: Reform and reconstruction in the Sixth Republic under Roh Tae Woo, 1987-1992 (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), p. 70; Lee, Jung Bock, ”Che 6konghwagug-ûi chôngch’i chedo,” in Min, Jun Kee et al., Han’gug-ûi chôngch’i: Chedo, kwajông, palchôn (P’aju: Nanam, 2008), pp. 96-7; South Korea – Constitution, Article 1:1, 8:2, 21:1, 67:1, 70 (http://www. oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/ks00000. html); The Brookings Institution: Center for North East Asian Policy Studies in collaboration with The Asian Studies Center: Heritage Foundation, The Political Science BK21 Project: Seoul National University and The Institute for Korean Political Studies: Seoul National University, Demo- cratic Consolidation in the Republic of Korea: Progress and Challenges (Washington, DC, February 2, 2009), p.