<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>[KS] KSR 2004-16: _Elites and Political Power in
South</title></head><body>
<div><font color="#000000">_Elites and Political Power in South
Korea_, by Byong-Man Ahn, 2003. Cheltenham and Northampton, UK: Edward
Elgar. 339 pages. (ISBN 1-84064-971-2)</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><br>
reviewed by Carl J. Saxer<br>
University of Copenhagen<br>
cjs@hum.ku.dk<br>
<br>
<br>
<i><x-tab> </x-tab>Elites and Political Power in South Korea</i>
is based on earlier work on the Korean government by Byong-Man Ahn
published in Korean and takes part in a longstanding debate in
political science, and especially within studies of democracy,
concerning the formation and importance of elites within the political
system. Divided into five sections and 14 chapters, the book
ambitiously attempts to analyze whether the "vicious cycle of
domineering [is] an outgrowth of Korea's native culture" and
whether this authoritarianism is "characteristic of developing
countries in their quest for political stability and economic growth"
(x).<br>
<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Part One, which contains a
single chapter, situates the changes Korea has undergone within a
global context, and introduces the concepts of "critical
elections" and "cycle of dominance," which, the author
argues, are valuable tools for analyzing political developments in
Korea (9). Part Two, consisting of four chapters, deals with
developments in the bureaucracy until the time of national division
and discusses the importance of political culture. The author argues
that the "hierarchical and collective consciousness" at the
center of the "Confucian-oriented bureaucracy" survived
colonial rule "without being significantly altered" (45).
The author claims that while Korea after liberation "shrug[ged]
off the Japanese pattern of authoritarian rule," the people gave
"tacit recognition to Korea's authoritarianism," and
that the absence of any significant difference between the two
resulted in their "blending" and the subsequent
reinforcement of Korean attitudes " attuned to and compliant with
authoritarian rule" (47).<br>
<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Part Three, whose five chapters make it
the longest portion of the book, analyzes the major shifts in power in
the post-division period. Although it does not bring forth new
information, Chapter Six provides an adequate overview of how the
opposition parties reacted to the increasingly authoritarian bent of
the nation's leaders during the post-war period, and how ruling
elites, among them the president of the first republic, "Rhi Syng
Man" [sic], increasingly turned to violent suppression of the
opposition. In the following chapter, the author gives an excellent
overview of the changes in Korean governmental structure since the
First Republic. In fact, the book is at its best when the author
analyses the Korean government's administrative structure. Chapter
Eight is a brief but detailed analysis of Korean presidents from Rhee
to Kim Young Sam. This chapter, like most, offers an interesting
theoretical discussion that attempts to link empirical data to ongoing
debates within political science. The analysis in Chapter Seven, for
example, is based on a survey conducted in 1992 and repeated in 1997
among more than 200 political scientists and administrators, which was
designed to "illuminate a way out of the vicious cycle of tragic
terminations of the presidency and to open new vistas for a politics
responsive to new social conditions and social aspirations for the
twenty-first century" (131). Unfortunately, how this goal is to
be achieved is not explained, and the author arrives at a conclusion
unsurprising to those who follow current political attitudes in Korea
that Park Chung Hee remains the most admired leader of
Korea.</font><br>
</div>
<div><font
color="#000000"><x-tab>
</x-tab>Next, in what is without doubt the strongest chapter in the
book, the author turns to an analysis of the ruling elites in Korea.
Tracking such issues as family background, education, prior career,
and how recruitment took place from the First Republic to the present,
the author convincingly argues that, although "meritocracy has
found its niche in the bureaucratic hierarchy" (191), the ruling
elite remains narrow and dominated by the graduates of a few select
universities. Chapter Ten consists of an analysis of what the author
terms "crucial election." He argues, that for an election to
merit designation as "crucial," significant political change
must take place due to the election result (195). In the author's
view, only elections resulting in an opposition political party
capable of "significantly challenging the government" can be
deemed crucial (197). Using Samuel Huntington's work on party
development and a detailed analysis of National Assembly elections,
the author argues that the development of political parties in Korea
have "evolved through the repetitious cycle of four stages"
(207). He claims that while the period prior to the Yushin regime was
characterized by the "vicious cycle of party development,"
developments since 1985 show evidence of a party system settling into
a "stable pattern" in which the "concept of crucial
elections will no longer hold true" (219). While this chapter
does an excellent job of analyzing electoral developments as such,
however, the usage, definition and argument on "crucial
elections" strikes this reviewer as circular, as all elections
leading to significant change are deemed "crucial elections,"
solely on the basis of the change that resulted from the
election.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>In Part
Four, Ahn examines the dynamics of what he terms the
"intra-political" system. Chapter Eleven analyses the
administrative set-up with a focus on relations between central and
local governments. After an informed theoretical discussion, he
examines the issue of decentralization versus centralization. Again,
here, in analysis of administrative structure, he is at his best. The
author argues that while the civic movement for democracy in the
1980s "posed a new threat to the dominance of the central
government" (242), centuries-long Confucianism has "reduced
local governments into a pale shadow" (243). Chapter Twelve
analyses relations between the executive and the bureaucracy.
Ahn argues that while the political neutrality of public officials has
"exercised a remarkable influence on the executive
administration" (257) and that "public officials in Korea
are more severely constrained in their political activities than their
counterparts in Western Europe" (267), nevertheless this
neutrality has not been observed in reality. He further claims that,
as democracy in Korea matures, the country will probably follow a
similar path as other democracies with "the emancipation of
public officials in Korea from political neutrality" (269).
Chapter Thirteen is a similar investigation that focuses on the
relationship between the executive and legislative branches. An
excellent quantitative analysis establishes that the executive has
dominated the legislative branch when it comes to passing bills. He
also, in my opinion, correctly argues that, while the 1987
constitution gave the National Assembly new powers in regard to its
oversight and control function, the Assembly has been "much
aggrieved by problems that threatened to eclipse its positive effects"
(284).<br>
<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>The final chapter provides an overview of developments
in Korean political economy with an emphasis on the relationship
between political society and business. However, while the treatment
of the topic is interesting, a proper conclusion that pulled the
book's diverse threads together would have been very
welcome.</font><br>
</div>
<div><font
color="#000000"><x-tab>
</x-tab>In summary,<i> Elites and Political Power in South Korea</i>
is a very interesting treatment of a topic that has not been dealt
with extensively in English. However, in addition to the absence of a
conclusion, the book suffers from very uneven quality in the English
prose and a lack of proper editing. This is particularly the case in
regard to Romanization and the usage of political science terms. Two
examples will suffice: the Independence Army is the Dok Rip Kun
(51<b>),</b> and Roh Tae-woo's move in the late '80s to improve
relations with communist countries becomes "Rho's nordic politik"
(95).</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"> </font><br>
</div>
<div><font
color="#000000"> <x-tab>
</x-tab> </font
></div>
<div><font color="#000000">Citation:</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">Saxer, Carl 2004</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">_Elites and Political Power in South
Korea_, by Byong-Man Ahn, (2002)</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">_Korean Studies Review_ 2004, no.
16</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">Electronic file:
http://koreaweb.ws/ks/ksr/ksr04-16.htm</font></div>
</body>
</html>