An annual publication of the University of San Francisco Center for the Pacific Rim Volume III · Number 1 May · 2003 Copyright 2003 CONTENTS Editors Stephen J. Roddy Nuclear Nonproliferation: A Hidden but Contentious Issue in US-Japan Joaquin Gonzalez Relations During the Carter Administration (1977-1981) Editorial >>.....................................................Charles S. Costello III 1 Consultants Barbara K. Bundy An Interview with 2002 Kiriyama Chair Rosemary Foot on Human Hartmut Fischer Richard J. Kozicki Rights, the United States, and the Asia Pacific Stephen Uhalley, Jr. >>..................................................Joaquin L. Gonzalez III 7 Xiaoxin Wu Editorial Board Persistence of Interlocking Institutions: Big Business Policy Under the Yoko Arisaka Bih-hsya Hsieh Kim Dae Jung Government Uldis Kruze >>......................................................................Jiho Jang 10 Man-lui Lau Mark Mir Noriko Nagata Shifting Boundaries: The Double Life of Walls in Beijing, 1949-1965 John K. Nelson >>................................................................Duanfang Lu 17 Kyoko Suda Bruce Wydick North Korean Realities >>............................................................James McAdam 25 Asian American Mental Health Issues >>.........................................................Michael Menaster 31 Christian Higher Education: A Case for the Study of the History of Christianity in China >>........................................................Peter Tze Ming Ng 35 Comparing Democratization in the East and the West >>.....................................Doh Chull Shin and Junhan Lee 40 Zebra Crossings: Perspectives on Pedestrian Safety in China >>..........Yu Qingling, Zhang Qiao, Wang Min, and Yan Jun 50 Asia Pacific: Perspectives Center for the Pacific Rim 2130 Fulton St, LM202 Asia Pacific: Perspectives is a peer-reviewed journal published once a year in May. It welcomes submissions San Francisco, CA from all fields of the social sciences and the humanities with relevance to the Asia Pacific region.* In keeping 94117-1080 with the Jesuit traditions of the University of San Francisco, Asia Pacific: Perspectives commits itself to the Tel: (415) 422-6357 highest standards of learning and scholarship. Fax: (415) 422-5933 Our task is to inform public opinion by a broad hospitality to divergent views and ideas that promote cross- [email protected] cultural understanding, tolerance, and the dissemination of knowledge unreservedly. Papers adopting a comparative, interdisciplinary approach will be especially welcome. Graduate students are strongly encouraged to submit their work for consideration. * ‘Asia Pacific region’ as used here includes East Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, Oceania, and the Russian Far East. Downloaded from http://www.pacificrim.usfca.edu/research/perspectives USF Center for the Pacific Rim Asia Pacific: Perspectives · May 2003 tions, political rights and civil liberties, and pro-democratic and anti-authoritarian political orientations among the mass public. Comparing Democratization In Asia a total of nine countries completed their transition to in the East and the West democracy during the mid-1980s and late-1990s. The nine countries are Bangladesh, Indonesia, Mongolia, Nepal, by Doh Chull Shin, Ph.D. and Junhan Lee, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand. Ph.D. Pakistan has recently reverted to military rule and can no longer be considered a new democracy. In Eastern Europe Abstract seven countries ended decades of Communist rule, and This paper ascertains the differences and similarities of democratic tran- joined in the current wave of democratization by the late sition and consolidation in Asia and Eastern Europe. To this end, this 1980s and early 1990s; they are: Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslo- study focuses on the four important aspects of democratization: the vakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. Of the modes of democratic transitions, the institutional choices after the tran- sitions, the magnitudes and patterns of democratic development, and the 15 member states of the former Soviet Union, eight still levels and patterns of popular support for democracy. As a result, we remain under authoritarian rule or are in a state of civil war. concluded that the modes of democratic transition did not vary across the Only seven of those member states can be considered new two regions, whereas there are remarkable differences in institutional democracies; they are: Estonia, the Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, choices, democratic progress, and attitudinal orientation toward demo- Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, and Ukraine. With the subse- cracy. quent breakup of Czechoslovakia into two separate states, a total of 15 post-Communist European countries are under The current, third-wave of democratization began to investigation, along with nine Asian countries in the third spread from Southern Europe to Latin America and other wave of democratization. All member countries of former regions in the mid-1970s. After over two decades of steady Yugoslavia are not included in this regional comparison for diffusion, it has now reached every region of the globe the reason that the process of their democratization has been stretching from Central and Eastern Europe to South America distinguished from that of their former Communist European and from Asia to Africa. How does the process of democrati- peers by successive waves of violent ethnic cleansing. zation differ across various regions? Do the differences really matter for the successful establishment of complete rule by Conceptualization the people and for the people? These questions have recently become a subject of increasing concern in the comparative In the large body of the literature on third-wave democra- study of democratization.1 cies; there is consensus that democratization is a continuing To date, much of the cross-regional research on demo- process of change or transformation that proceeds in multiple cratic transitions and consolidations has been devoted to directions and at different paces. Being a dynamic process, it comparing Southern Europe, Latin America, and Central and involves a multitude of events and phases that do not Eastern Europe.2 In the literature on third-wave democracies, necessarily evolve in a teleological fashion. To properly only a handful of cross-regional studies have attempted to understand such a process, this present study rejects the compare and distinguish the Asian patterns of democratiza- notion that democratization, as a movement toward democ- tion from what has been noted especially in former Commu- racy, is a dichotomous or unidirectional phenomenon. Instead nist Europe.3 Even these attempts are extremely limited in of focusing on one particular event or phase, such as the both breadth and depth. As a result, little is known about how introduction or consolidation of democracy, this study seeks the contours, dynamics, and sources of democratization in the to examine upward and downward movements toward Asian states differ from those in the former Communist democracy. By examining where new democracies are coming European countries. from and where they are now, this paper plans to offer a This paper is a first systematic effort to compare Asia and dynamic account of those movements. post-Communist Europe in terms of four important aspects of Democratization is conceptualized here as a multi- democratization. Specifically, the paper first compares the dimensional phenomenon. Political scientists tend to equate modes of democratic transition in the two regions. Then it democracy merely with free competitive elections and fail to focuses on the institutional dimension of democratization in examine the human meaning of democratic change, especially 4 these regions with an emphasis on governmental structure from the perspective of the masses experiencing it. For the and electoral systems. This is followed by a comparative masses who have suffered a great deal of political oppression analysis of substantive democratic progress or retrogression and injustice, democracy symbolizes much more than the in the two regions. Finally, this paper will identify regional abolition of repressive political institutions and the replace- differences in the general levels and patterns of popular ment of authoritarian political leaders. Democracy represents support for democracy. In a nutshell, the present inquiry opportunities and resources for a better quality of life. It also 5 seeks to offer a comprehensive account of Asia-Europe represents “a more equitable and humane society.” differences and similarities in democratization during the Grounded in the substantive notion that democracy is rule for mid-1980s and 1990s. To this end it examines not only the the people, the present study takes into account the extent to transition and consolidation phases of democratization, but which those masses experience political rights and civil also its three key dimensions featuring, respectively, institu- liberties in the wake of democratic regime change. http://www.pacificrim.usfca.edu/research/perspectives Comparing Democratization / Shin & Lee · 40 USF Center for the Pacific Rim Asia Pacific: Perspectives · May 2003 Democratization is also conceptualized as a multi-level tion is further distinguished in this present study from that of phenomenon. It is a process of transformation taking place at pacted transition in order to highlight the regional differences the levels of the political