[KS] KSR 2000-08: _The North and South Korean Political Systems - A

[Stephen Epstein]

REPLY sends your message to the whole list
__________________________________________

_The North and South Korean Political Systems - A Comparative Analysis_, by
Sung Chul Yang, revised ed., Seoul: Hollym 1999. 883 pages, appendices,
index. ISBN: 1-56591-105-9.

Reviewed by Bernhard Seliger
Hanguk University of Foreign Studies


	The Korean political coordinates, for decades immobile and not even
changed by the end of the cold war, the origin of Korean division, suddenly
change: the historic event of the Inter-Korean Summit in June 2000 and the
subsequent developments led to an intense reunification discussion and
sometimes even euphoria in South Korea and the international media. In this
respect, Yang's revised 1000 page (with the appenices and index) volume on
the comparison of North and South Korean political institutions could not
be more timely. While the most recent developments could not be included in
the book, it provides a most thorough analysis of the political systems as
they evolved in the two Koreas after 1945. In the actual euphoria
surrounding the new politics of North Korea, such an analysis is exactly
what is missing. Yang's study presents a sound basis for a more sober
analysis of the policy options and challenges for the Korean peninsula.
Originally written in 1992 and published in a first version in 1994, the
basic comparison of political institutions is still the main reason to read
Yang's book, rather than for its revisions in light of the Asian crisis.

	The Korean peninsula, together with Germany, is one of the few
"laboratories" for political scientists interested in studying the effects
of different political institutions upon a society without the variables of
a different cultural background. These cultural differences - ultimately
the reasons for the ongoing dispute between area studies and political
science - tend to devalue the analysis of dichotomies between different
countries. But in Korea diametrically opposed institutions exist despite a
unique degree of cultural and ethnic homogeneity: the two Koreas are "two
bowls moulded of the same clay".

	Before studying the dichotomous "two bowls" in the first part of
the analysis, Yang in three chapters tries to analyse the "clay"--the
common political heritage--and its influences on contemporary politics.
After a short historical introduction he discusses the distinguishing
features of political culture in ancient Korea, namely the tradition of
authoritarianism, the sharp distinction between classes, the dominant
influence of the bureaucracy and the related political longevity,
factionalism and the existence of a state religion as political power
mechanism. Indeed, many of these features can be found in a modified form
in modern Korea as well. Attached to this chapter are various maps and
tables concerning Korean history, administrative shape, diagrams of Chos™n
factional strife, etc. Finally, a chapter on the origins and developments
of Korean nationalism discusses the idea of Korea as a nation, especially
in the colonial era, a period in which the ideological bifurcation between
nationalists and communists, which later led to the installation of two
different ideological systems in Korea, had already begun.

	In the second part of his book, Yang analyses contemporary
political settings, namely, the politics of partition in Korea and
ideological developments in the North and South. He begins by stating that
no division of a nation in the wake of World War II was so arbitrary,
abnormal and artificial as the division of Korea and he pins the blame for
this partition mainly on the US. This, however, seems a bit too facile,
given contemporary internal struggles and ideological differences (e.g.
communist forces, nationalists, Japanese collaborators, especially the
police force, landlords, etc.) within Korea. The partition of Korea was
neither more abnormal than that, say, of Vietnam or Yemen, nor was it
entirely unrelated to domestic divisions. It was mainly the outcome of cold
war politics, but also facilitated by the bifurcations Yang himself
discusses in his book. This point becomes even clearer in his following
discussion of the different steps of implementing Juche ideology in the
North and the ideological regimes of the South, which were characterized by
various forms of conservatism and subsequently liberalism.

	The third and fourth parts of the book deal with the political
institutions of North Korea and South Korea, respectively. Both parts are
structured in chapters discussing the political framework, the evolution of
formal political structures, the ruling elites and the seizure of power by
the rulers themselves. North Korea has been during its history the
prototype of a totalitarian state. After treating  features North Korea
shares with socialist states, Yang follows with a more interesting
discussion of the specific elements of North Korean socialism. The first
element is the step-by-step implementation of the Juche idea. In terms of
political leadership, this also represented the step-by-step consolidation
of Kim Il Sung's absolute power. A second special characteristic of North
Korea lies its tiny size and homogeneity, which has helped implement
policies and personality cult in an even more totalitarian way. The
problems of ethnic minorities and territorial control typical for its
larger neighbours that have resulted in resistance to the totalitarian
state do not exist in North Korea. Accordng to Yang, another factor
enhancing totalitarian control has been a siege mentality resulting from
North Korea's geographical situation and now its ideological uniqueness.
The population of the North, he concludes, is 'mobilized, but immobile',
i.e. highly controlled through and mobilized by the state apparatus, but
only as a powerless, manipulated mass.

	Yang follows with an outline of formal political structures
(including again a wealth of statistical material on North Korean political
institutions, such as the educational background of lawmakers, a list of
the most important policy makers, and organizational charts) and a
discussion of the ruling elites and their factional affiliations that shows
that 'the history of purges in North Korea is a chronicle of Kim's
political triumph'. A more biographical perspective on Kim Il Sung's rise
to power in the next chapter corrobates this judgement.

	The discussion of South Korea's political system, due to frequent
changes of regime, is more complex. Yang identifies anti-liberalism,
anti-parliamentarianism, corporatism, developmentalism and praetorianism,
(the involvement of military officers in politics) as typical elements of
the authoritarian phase of government. However, these authoritarian
tendencies always existed in tension with the constitutional pledge that
Korea was a democratic republic whose sovereignty resides in the people.
The short democratic interlude of 1960 could not resolve this tension and
even the democratisation process since the late 1980s has been hampered,
according to Yang, by persisting undemocratic values and behaviours in the
South Korean society: ritualism and favouritism, regionalism (the Honam/
Yongnam split), 'party boss-ism' and the ultimate power cult of the
presidential system constitute major problems for democratisation. Yang
touches on the rapid transformation of Korea with its resulting
urbanization and industrialization, but fails to explore their impact on
the political structure further. A discussion of the role of economic
freedom and development as a basis for claims for political participation,
especially of the widening middle classes, is lacking.

	The analysis of the ruling elite of South Korea is based on an
earlier study of Yang (together with Ahn Byong-man) that discussed the
elites from 1948 to 1988 according to their personal and educational
background, career, regional background and age. In line with the previous
discussion of regionalism, ritualism and favouritism, the result is
obvious: elite selection is ascription-oriented, not achievement-oriented.
Despite the widespread image of meritocracy in the Confucian-oriented
society, the three connections (blood, school and region) are determining
factors of elite selection. The seizure of power in South Korea is opposed
to that of the North: while the North saw the constant rise of one leader,
Kim Il Sung, and the smooth transfer of power to his son (as far as can be
known in available sources), the South has been characterized by a series
of legitimacy crises. The legitimacy of the first government rested solely
on American recognition, and the Rhee through Roh governments all
experienced serious challenges to their legitimacy.

	In the fifth part of the book Yang compares the economic systems of
the two Koreas. Beginning with a short discussion of their respective
resource endowments and natural conditions, he describes the centrally
planned, 'command' economy of North Korea and the market, 'capitalist'
economy of South Korea. In this part a revision in the light of newer
research is necessary: Yang's comparison is based on data available in the
early 1990s and does not take into account the now well-known problems with
the official data of socialist states nor the rapid decline of performance
of the North Korean economy after the break-up of the communist
commonwealth are cited. Despite its Juche ideology of autarky, North Korea
seems not to be an economically viable independent unit, as famines and its
desperate policy of opening towards Southern (and Western) aid and
investment shows. In this respect, it is bewildering to read in this
revised edition that 'both North and South Korea have largely succeeded in
solving the people's basic bread and circus question'. Here - as before in
the question of South Korean democratisation - Yang misses the chance to
relate economic development and the evolution of political institutions.

	After this systematic opposition of political and economic
institutions Yang investigates some critical issues in more depth, such as
the seizure of power in both Koreas, the arms race, the educational system
and reunification policy. While the first of these questions has already
been dealt with before, the other three are important extensions of the
previous analysis. The chapter on educational systems in particular offers
an enlightening contrast of the North's totalitarian system, which faced no
serious ideological opposition and the South, where democratic and
authoritarian educational ideals competed for dominance.

	The chapter on unification begins with a comparison with Germany.
While the basic conditions of Germany (e.g. its economic situation, the
political organization of the dominant partner,  rapprochement, and media
availability in the years before unification) in 1990 and Korea in 2000 are
quite incomparable, the author identifies two useful features that merit
exploration: first, the German unification was an interplay of controllable
and uncontrollable events. While plans for unification (like Helmut Kohl's
ten steps plan) were made, circumstances often made those plans worthless
(e.g., mass demonstrations in Eastern Germany requiring immediate change to
the Deutschmark); secondly, German unification began with euphoria over
newly won unity and the end of the communist state, but ended in
diappointment for many, because neither could the communist legacy could be
dealt with sufficiently, nor did the new system meet the high expectations
of the people. For Korea, these two observations deserve specific
attention, since it can be expected that they will prove even more
important in the Korean case. Uncontrollable events might shape the
unification process much more in Korea, since neither a power transfer from
the communists to a democratic government is secured, nor is information
about political and economic conditions in North Korea abundant.
Unification euphoria is already great in South Korea, with the steps of
rapprochement. Given the disastrous state of the North's economy and the
South's fragile economic recovery, however, the problems following
unification might be much deeper here. In this respect, the dilemma between
fast political transformation towards democracy (which might lead to a mass
migration to the South or the requirement of mass transfers of subsidies to
the North) and smooth economic transformation (which would require a
gradual increase of productivity and gradual integration of North Korea
into the world economy) should have been explored further.

	After a conclusion summing up the book so far, two short chapters
are added in the revised edition on the domestic agenda, i.e. the
restructuring of the South Korean economy and society after the Asian
crisis, and unification. While this addition is important and
understandable, it is at the same time the weakest part of the book. Sung
Chul Yang's academic career (as professor of political science and dean of
academic affairs at the Graduate Institute of Peace Studies at Kyunghee
University and president of the Korean Association of International
Studies) changed into a political career with the National Congress for New
Politics, the party supporting Kim Dae Jung's presidency after 1997. His
changed role from an academic to a politician changes the perspective of
the book. The last two chapters outline government policy in two areas: 1)
domestic reform policy ('DJnomics'), based on the reform of the public and
private sector, labour market and financial sector plus external
liberalization ('four plus one policy'); 2) the 'sunshine' policy of Kim
Dae Jung, written, however, before the breakthrough of the inter-Korean
summit.

	While both parts try to strike a balance between partisan and
academic analysis, as a revision for Yang's book, they are a
disappointment. A revision of the previous chapter would have proved far
more interesting (if more cumbersome). Neither the transfer of power in the
North nor the 1998 transfer of power to an opposition party in the South
that signified the maturing of democracy are included in this previous
analysis. Also, as earlier noted, the discussion of the North Korean
economic disaster and its consequences for unification policy merits a
broader foundation. Despite these shortcomings, Yang's book is probably the
most thorough analysis of North and South Korean political institutions
available in English. It covers a broader theme than most other books (like
Kim Joungwon's 'Divided Korea') and gives a wealth of information including
extensive appendices, and as such, the one thousand pages (!) of this
volume are well worth reading.

Citation:
Seliger, Bernhard 2000
Review of Sung Chul Yang, _The North and South Korean Political Systems - A
Comparative Analysis_ (2000)
_Korean Studies Review_ 2000, no. 8
Electronic file: http://www.iic.edu/thelist/review/ksr00-08.htm