Skip to main content

Contested politics in South Korea

Democratic evolution, national identity and political partisanship

Research paper Updated 13 December 2023 Published 28 July 2022 ISBN: 978 1 78413 530 0 DOI: 10.55317/9781784135300

Photo of candidates in South Korean presidential debate, February 2022

Dr John Nilsson-Wright

Former Korea Foundation Korea Fellow and Senior Fellow for Northeast Asia, Asia-Pacific Programme

Academic and policy analysts are sharply divided over the strength and durability of democracy in South Korea. The political system nominally assures a reliable and representative process. But divisive identity politics, mass protest and the abuse of power have prompted some observers to argue that the country is in the grip of ‘democratic decay’.

This paper seeks to evaluate that claim, identifying five phases in the country’s post-1945 political evolution: ‘illiberal democracy’ (1945–60), ‘democratic authoritarianism’ (1961–72), ‘authoritarian exceptionalism’ (1972–87), ‘democratic paternalism’ (1987–2001) and ‘participatory democracy’ (2002 to date). It also finds that while South Korea today remains susceptible to populist impulses, its democracy in some respects is healthier than might be assumed.

Encouraging signs include the smooth transition to a new presidential administration in 2022, and a recent shift towards more independent, and less tribal, voter attitudes. More work is needed, nonetheless, to strengthen the transparency and accountability of political institutions, and to entrench a culture tolerant of ideological differences.

Loading, please wait

Summary

Academic and policy analysts are sharply divided over the strength and durability of representative democracy in South Korea.
Institutionally, the Republic of Korea (ROK) possesses structural features that should, in principle, provide for a reliable and representative democratic process. These structures include: a written constitution; the separation of powers between the presidential executive, a unicameral National Assembly and a functioning judiciary; a diverse media; and a system of local and national elections governed by a distinct and transparent regulatory process.
However, there is a persistent tendency by voters and activists on both the right and left of politics to rely on mass-based protest to challenge leaders’ perceived (and actual) deficiencies, which include corruption, poor decision-making, excessive partisanship and a willingness to abuse the power of the presidency. This has encouraged some observers to argue that the country is in the grip of ‘democratic decay’.
International surveys suggest that South Korea still lags behind other comparable liberal democratic polities in terms of press freedom, political rights and individual autonomy.
The shortcomings of the country’s contemporary democracy are ‘path-dependent’ – a function of a highly contested post-1945 political history in which elites, both on the left and the right, have relied on cultural norms of deference, divisive identity politics and the institutions of politics to exclude opponents and narrow the political spectrum to limit voter choice.
The wider context of the Cold War division of the Korean peninsula and the security threat from North Korea had limited the ability of the US, South Korea’s alliance partner, to effect lasting democratic change in South Korea.
The rhetoric of identity politics remains powerful, but it appears to be less salient than in the past in influencing political outcomes. The results of the March 2022 presidential election, one of the closest in the country’s history, suggest that economic considerations (particularly concern over rising wealth and income inequality) are increasingly important in shaping the choices of voters, who may be becoming more independent and less partisan than in the past.
Notwithstanding the smooth transition from the progressive administration of President Moon Jae-in to the conservative administration of President Yoon Yuk-seol following the 2022 election, the bitterness of recent political rhetoric and the tendency of politicians to frame political choices in divisive, moralistic terms of ‘good versus evil’ suggest that South Korea is not immune from the dangers of populism.
Guarding against these dangers requires continued efforts to strengthen the transparency and accountability of political institutions. It requires a willingness by political leaders, public commentators and voters to recognize and accept the legitimacy of opposing political views, and to engage constructively even where they disagree over policies.