1) The document discusses the democratization of South Korea and the current political issues facing the country under President Park Geun-hye. 2) It theorizes that a weak central authority during democratization can lead leaders to increase nationalist policies in order to maintain power. 3) It aims to apply this theory to explain President Park's nationalist actions and the decreasing health of South Korea's democracy.

1.
Autumn in Seoul
Central Authority’s Role in the Promotion of Nationalism During Democratization
By Maria Alfonso
International Approaches to State­Building, Reform, and Good Governance
Professor Kobzar
Vesalius College
21 March 2016

2. Referred to as a “miracle” for its quick progression from a war­torn state to a significant
economic presence in Asia, South Korea is often regarded as a model of successful
democratization. Yet, the health of democracy has come into question under the presidency of
Park Geun­hye, daughter of the former dictator Park Chung­hee, and her policies of reform and
repression. A wave of protests has sprung up against the Park administration and its repression of
both unions and freedom of speech. This has caused the overall rating on the health of South
Korea’s democracy to have a decreasing trend (FreedomHouse). Why has this decrease
happened in a country that was once hailed as the second strongest democracy in the region?
This paper will propose an answer to the question using the theoretical linkage between a
weak central authority and nationalism. It will then apply this link to the case of the Park
administration’s activities within the current political landscape of South Korea. An exploration
of the history of democratization in South Korea will be undertaken in order to provide the
background necessary to understand the current political issues facing the country. Subsequently,
an exploration of the theory of democratization and the theorizing of a connection between weak
central authority and nationalism will be undertaken. After, a weak central authority and rise in
nationalism will be demonstrated by the laying out of the current political landscape in South
Korea. Finally, the fourth section will synthesize the preceding sections’ information and address
any respective issues. Thus, this paper will set out to demonstrate the role that a weak central
authority played in creating a rise in President Park’s nationalist policies.
Through theorizing on such an issue, this paper will work to address the gap in research
caused by a lack of articles on the reason for de­democratization in South Korea. While some of
the current literature on the subject address the de­democratization, it fails to discuss the state’s
structural issues that can have an affect. In addition to the direct consequence of this research, the
paper can also serve to further the theoretical link between nationalism and a weak central
authority and an addition to research on South Korean democracy. Finally, furthering research in
this area can help to provide information on democratization in a young democracy which had
been supported by outside states through funds and political willpower.
Part One: Summary of South Korean Democratization

3. The beginning of democratization in South Korea correlates directly to the release of the
Korean Peninsula from Japanese occupation and the end of the Korean War in 1953 (U.S.
Department of State). During this time, the Presidency of South Korea was given to Syngman
Rhee, who had the approval of the United States. Rhee’s goal was to reunite the two Korea’s
without communism (Oberdorfer, 1997, pg. 39). He never succeeded, and became corrupt while
increasing his dictatorial power (Oberdorfer, 1997, pg. 42). Finally, a student­led revolt over
electoral fraud toppled his regime, allowing for Major General Park Chung Hee to assume power
in 1960 (BBC, 2015).
Park, who at one point pledged to return South Korea to a civilian government, instead
increased the grip of military rule over government institutions (Kim, 2011, pg. 72). His goal
was to eradicate pro­communism and the corrupt administrators, while strengthening the state
under “guided capitalism” (Kim, 2011, pg. 72­73). Under his regime, he combed the government
and civil society, working to root out anyone associated with communism or corruption (Kim,
2011, pg. 73). During this time, many of the major economic reforms that allowed South Korea
to rapidly develop began. Park stimulated economic growth by using state­led intervention
policies in enterprise that reflected opposing positions of state control and free competition
(Kim, 2011, pg. 78­79). Foreign pressure from the United States and Japan began to push Park
into creating a more democratic government, which Park finally conceded to do in his
resignation from the military and entrance into the presidential race (Kim, 2011, pg. 88).
In his bid for the presidency, Park appealed to voters via his stance on Korean
independence from foreign aid and his invented concept of “Koreanized democracy” (Kim,
2011, pg. 89). He won on this concept in October 1963 (Kim, 2011, pg. 92). Still, Park felt
threatened and began to work towards increasing his power base. One of the threats was a protest
for freedom of speech by journalists in 1971 (Kim, 2011, pg. 125). At the same time, an
economic crisis was taking its toll on the country and resulted in even more protesting. To
maintain his power under threat, Park declared a state of National Emergency, giving himself an
extreme amount of power (Kim, 2011, pg.127). He used this power to create training programs
that would help the economy and increase the nationalist mindset of the people (Kim, 2011, pg.
133). All of this came to an end when Park was assassinated in 1979 (BBC, 2015). Park left an

4. influential legacy in Korea. He developed the country into the economic power that it is today
while also creating an environment of ethnic nationalism and suppressed freedoms.
Park’s assassination resulted in two years of martial law before the transferring of power
to the indirectly elected, Chun Doo­hwan (BBC, 2015). During this time, Korea continued to
develop with a focus on computers and technology. Chun took a big step towards
democratization by allowing for direct election of the president in 1986 (BBC, 2015). This was
when South Korea truly began to democratize, paving the way for future presidents and allowing
for more political liberalization.
Part Two: Democratization, Good Governance and the Central Authority
As South Korea continues on its path of democratization, good governance and the state
of a central authority have a significant effect on the country. In order to explore these ideas’ role
in South Korea, it is necessary to first outline the concepts of each theory.
The core theoretical concept being explored in this paper is democratization.
Democratization is defined by Schmitz and Sell as, “a process of regime change that is directed
towards a specific aim: the establishment and stabilization of substantive democracy” (Schmitz
and Sell, 1999, pg. 25). One of the theories that is debated alongside democratization, is that of
good governance. The Commission on Global Governance defines governance as
the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common
affairs. It is the continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be
accommodated and cooperative action may be taken. (Commission on Global Governance, 1995,
pg. 2)
Using this definition, the state of political parties ties directly into governance through the
way it allows individuals and institutions to take cooperative action. Reflections of the tie
between political parties and governance is seen in a briefing paper of the Overseas Development
Institute. The institute asserts the importance of political parties through three components:
1. Political parties matter for the organization of an election.
2. Political parties are crucial in working to maintain power after an election.
3. Political parties contribute to shaping moments of state formation. (Overseas
Development Institute, 2010, pg. 2)

5. To complete the conceptual linkage, Mansfield and Snyder state the link of unstable political
parties writing,
“Democratization typically creates a syndrome of weak central authority, unstable
domestic coalitions, and high­energy mass politics. It brings new social groups
and classes onto the political stage. Political leaders, finding no way to reconcile
incompatible interests resort to shortsighted bargains or reckless gambles in order
to maintain their governing coalitions” (Mansfield and Snyder, 1995).
Democratization can have a dampening effect on political parties and, therefore on good
governance. This effect results in the insecurity of political leadership with which Mansfield and
Snyder associate a rise in nationalism as an attempt by the leader to maintain power.
Finally, with the theoretical linkage constructed, it is necessary to explore the definition
of nationalism. When using the theory to apply to South Korea, the nationalism that this paper is
referring to is civic nationalism. In this case, civic nationalism is based on the national identity
from citizenship whereas ethnic nationalism is based on ethnic identity (Gat & Yakobson, 2012
,pg. 331). Yet there is still a dispute over the differences between the two with some arguments
stating that civic nationalism has elements of ethnic nationalism in it (Gat & Yakobson, 2012
,pg. 331). In South Korea’s case this criticism is applicable because the current state of national
identity in South Korea is considered an “ethnic­genealogical model” (Moon, 2015, pg. 2). In
1990, only 1% of the population in South Korea was foreign (Moon, 2015, pg.3). Therefore,
while the attempted nationalism produced by President Park may appear as civic nationalism,
due to the legitimacy it provides for the former Park dictatorship, the ethnic undertones of the
issue should not be ignored (Tudor, 2012, pg. 172).
Lastly, it is necessary to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the sources used of this
analysis. While it may seem unique to be using a commission and an institute as sources for the
definition of good governance and the role of political parties in good governance, these sources
were chosen due to the nature of state building as a field. State­building cannot be confined to
academia because the planning and execution of the theoretical needs to be undertaken to prove
the validity. In this case, these institutions are excellent sources to yield definitions because of
the active role each plays in state­building. In addition to this issue, there is a weakness that must

6. be addressed with the use of academic sources related specifically to South Korea. As South
Korea is a relatively young country, and has only been economically relevant for an even shorter
period of time, the interest of academia in the country is still relatively low compared to other
states. Due to this, the majority of these sources come from Yonsei University or Stanford
University, making the diversity of opinions weaker than it could be if there were more available
academic research being done on South Korea.
Nationalism will always have a place within the political landscape of a country. Due to
this, the inherent relationship between democratization and nationalism must be explored. In
examining this relationship, there seems to exist a link between weak central authority and the
production of nationalism within the overall process of democratization of a country.
Part Three: The Current State of Korea’s Political Parties
To apply the theory of democratization to South Korea, it is necessary to explore the state
of the country’s political parties. South Korea’s political landscape can be summarized as
confusing at best. The parties are constantly changing with shifts in power happening in a short
timeframe. One of the best summaries of this situation is by Steinberg and Shin, “Some [political
parties] have been destroyed by the authorities, but most simply are used to fulfill the aspirations
of their leaders to achieve daekwon, or great power.”
Before the elections that brought Park Geun­hye to power, there were two major parties
in South Korean politics. These parties included the Saenuri Party, formerly known as the Grand
National Party (GNP), and the United Democratic Party (UDP), formerly known as the
Democratic Party (DP). The Saenuri Party and the United Democratic Party changed their names
because both parties had very public incidents of internal fighting and leadership meltdowns (Yi,
2012). These issues are nothing new, from 1987 to 2008 the “nine liberal and seven conservative
parties have been established and disestablished”(Bailey, 2010, pg.1). With such great turnover
and internal fighting, the parties are obviously unstable within the government and the eyes of
the public.
Still, elections went forward, and on December 19, 2012, Park Geun­hye was elected into
office as the first female President of South Korea (Lee, 2013, pg 2). Unfortunately, this marked
the beginning of the decline of liberal democracy within South Korea. Right away, there was

7. controversy due to the alleged interference of the National Intelligence Service in the 2012
elections (Moon, 2016). Supposedly, the NIS posted malicious online comments in order to
support Park, who won by a 3.6 percent margin (Lee and Campbell, 2013). The prosecutor, Chae
Dong­wook, responsible for leading the investigation into the supposed fraud, was forced to
resign in 2013 (Lee and Campbell, 2013). While the resignation was said to be due to a child that
was born out of an adulterous relationship, Lee and Campbell describe the general opinion as,
“many believe that the Blue House, the office of South Korea’s President, had pressured Mr.
Chae to step down in order to guard the Park administration’s reputation and protect the NIS
from reform” (Lee and Campbell, 2013). At the same time, a prominent official, Lee Seok­ki,
was arrested in a conspiracy to inspire a pro­North Korean rebellion against the South Korean
government (Lee and Campbell, 2013). Again, public opinion believed this to be part of a
political move by the NIS to distract from the election scandal (Lee and Campbell, 2013). The
investigation resulted in a large amount of evidence against the NIS, who justified the election
interference as “routine intelligence work against North Korea” (Lee and Campbell, 2013). At
first, 55% of South Koreans believed the ruling party had conspired with the NIS but this initial
outrage seemed to have died down until the next political scandal (Lee and Campbell, 2013).
The next scandal occurred in 2015 when the government cracked down on a protest that
involved 60,000 people using water cannons filled with water that had been laced with an irritant
found in chili pepper (Kim, 2015). The protests were against labor reforms believed to only
benefit the country’s family­controlled conglomerates, known as chaebol (money clan) (Kim,
2015).
During the same year, a third scandal broke out over the government’s announcement
that it would be issuing government created textbooks to teach history to middle and high school
students (Choe (B), 2015). The textbooks changed the characterization of previous Japanese
colonial rule and the subsequent dictatorships (Choe (B), 2015). Conservative critics believed
that the books contained “ideological bias” and presented Park Chung­hee’s dictatorship in a
negative light (Choe (B), 2015). Critics of this action viewed it as Park’s attempt to follow in her
father’s footsteps, when South Korean textbooks were used “to glorify his coup as a ‘revolution’
and to justify his prolonged rule” (Choe (B), 2015).

8. Thus, the current political landscape in South Korea is in disarray. Not only are the
political parties constantly reforming due to internal fighting, but the ruling party's leader and the
president of the country, has been involved in a number of political scandals since the beginning
of her administration. This is seen as an issue to establishing overall trust in political leadership
in South Korea, resulting in a weak central authority. In addition, the country seems to be
experiencing a de­democratization with the issues that affect free and fair elections, the freedom
to join and create assemblies, and freedom of speech.
Part Four: A Weak Central Authority and Nationalism
As established in Part Two, a weak central authority can result in a leader’s grasp for
power through nationalist tactics. While central authority is a relatively ambiguous term, in this
case, South Korean central authority is made up of the government and business elites of the
country who have the largest amount of authority over the political landscape in South Korea
with regard to democracy. With the constant establishment and disbanding of political parties
within South Korea and the increasing number of political scandals, the central authority is weak.
In addition, Park won the Presidential nomination with only 3.6% margin on a bid that was
possibly orchestrated illegally.
With her position within South Korean politics diminishing, Park began to undertake
some of her central attacks on democracy. Park claims only a 39% of South Korean support and
her administration has come under increasing international criticism (Kim, 2015). Yet, the
opposition party, New Politics Alliance for Democracy, is even less supported at 22% (Kim,
2015). The party vowed to create a bill that would ban government interference in textbooks but
Ms. Parks party, the Saenuri Party, dominates the National Assembly, meaning any bill would
not make it to law (Choe (B), 2015). Park benefits on these attacks to democracy through
establishing legitimacy for her administration and the promotion of her father’s legacy as
positive. In this, the connection is made between the weak central authority within South Korea,
Park’s need for political control, and the increase in nationalist practices seen in the reprinting of
the history textbooks.
Now that the paper has outlined the theoretical link between a weak central authority and
nationalism using South Korea as a case, it is necessary to address some counter­arguments that

9. could arise. First, the major issue with this work is that it has limited applicability outside of the
presented case. While South Korea is an excellent case to prove this theoretical link, further
research is necessary for the idea to have greater external validity. Second, Park has currently
decreased her nationalist related activities. However, this point can be attributed to the recent
belligerent activity from North Korea which has served as a political distraction. The health of
the upcoming elections in April could provide another interesting test of the strength of
democratization in South Korea. In addition to these points, it is necessary to address the linkage
between other weaknesses in the state as causing a rise in nationalism. While an increase in
nationalism can be caused by lack of media transparency (a weakness of the civil society) or
issues with human security (for example, a high unemployment rate), in the case of South Korea
these issues are not applicable. This is due to the nationalism emanating from the top­down,
through President Park's administration, rather than the bottom­up, through the people.
Conclusion
South Korea is a young democracy, yet it has often been hailed as a success story due to
its quickly achieved economic status. This economic success was mainly obtained during the
Park military dictatorship whose work also increased the amount of nationalist rhetoric. Now, the
current President of South Korea and daughter of the former dictator, Park Geun­hye is working
to increase nationalist sentiment within the country. Her administration has not only undermined
free and fair elections and freedom of assembly, but is now attempting to undermine freedom of
speech within the country. Such an example within the history of democratization serves as
evidence suggesting the link between a weak central authority and a rise in nationalist policies
put forth by political leaders. While this rise may not topple the democratization work done
within South Korea, it is necessary to acknowledge in order to maintain its progress in
democratization. Overall, this paper provides an analysis of the role that a weak central authority
can play in the increase of nationalist policies by the Park administration.

10. Works Consulted
Books
Commission on Global Governance 1995. Our Global Neighborhood, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Gat, A & Yakobson, A 2012. Nations: The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity
and Nationalism, Cambridge University Press.
Kim, H 2003. Korea’s Development Under Park Chung­Hee, Taylor & Francis.
Oberdorfer, D & Carlin, R 2013. The Two Koreas: A Contemporary History, Basic Books.
Schmitz, H & Sell, K 1999. Democracy Without Borders: Transnationalization and
Conditionality in New Democracies, Routledge, London.
Shin, G, Chang, P, Lee, J & Kim, S 2007. South Korea's Democracy Movement (1970­1993)
Report, Stanford Korea Democracy Project, Stanford University.
Tudor, D 2012. Korea: The Impossible Country, Tuttle Publishing.
Online Journals/ Articles
Chang, P & Vitale, A 2013. “Repressive Coverage in an Authoritarian Context: Threat,
Weakness, and Legitimacy in South Korea’s Democracy Movement”, Mobilization: An
International Journal vol. 18. Available at:
http://web.yonsei.ac.kr/paulchang/website/Research/Chang_and_Vitale­final.pdf​ [9 April 2016].
Mansfield, E & Snyder, J 1995. “Democratization and War”, Foreign Affairs. Available at:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/1995­05­01/democratization­and­war​ [9 April
2016]
Moon, K 2015. “South Korea’s Demographic Changes and their Political Impact”, Brookings
East Asia Policy Paper vol. 6. Available at:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/10/south­korea­demographic­chan
ge­moon/south­koreas­demographic­changes­and­their­political­impact.pdf​ [9 April 2016].
Yi, J 2012. “Seoul’s ‘New’ Political Parties”, International Policy Digest. Available at:
http://intpolicydigest.org/2012/02/05/seouls­new­political­parties/​ [9 April 2016]
NewsPaper Articles
Campbelll, E & Lee, S 2013. “Fragility of South Korea democracy exposed”, East Asia Forum.
Available at:

11. http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/11/06/fragility­of­south­korea­democracy­exposed/​ [9 April
2016]
Choe, S 2015 (A). “South Korea’s Governing Party Skates Through Elections Despite Scandal”,
New York Times. Available at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/world/asia/south­koreas­governing­party­skates­through­el
ections­despite­scandal.html?_r=0​ [9 April 2016].
Choe, S 2015 (B). “South Korea to Issue State History Textbooks, Rejecting Private Publishers”,
New York Times. Available at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/world/asia/south­korea­to­issue­state­history­textbooks­reje
cting­private­publishers.html​ [9 April 2016].
Denney, S 2015. “How South Korea’s Growing Multiculturalism Could Complicate
Unification”, The Diplomat. Available at:
http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/how­south­koreas­growing­multiculturalism­could­complicate­u
nification/​ [9 April 2016].
Fifield, A & Seo, Y 2015. “In South Korea’s president, some see echoes of her repressive
father”, The Washington Post. Available at:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in­south­koreas­president­some­see­echoes­of­her­repre
ssive­father/2015/12/05/62434210­990f­11e5­aca6­1ae3be6f06d2_story.html​ [9 April 2016].
Global Research News 2013. ‘South Korea Police State: National Intelligence Arrests Rep. Lee
Seok­ki: Did ROK Lawmaker Overthrow the Government?”, Global Research. Available at:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/south­korea­police­police­national­intelligence­service­nis­arrests­
rep­lee­seok­ki­did­rok­lawmaker­really­try­to­overthrow­the­government/5358043​ [9 April
2016].
Kim, J 2015. “South Korea vows no tolerance after violent protest in Seoul”, Reuters. Available
at:​ ​http://www.reuters.com/article/us­southkorea­protest­idUSKCN0T40AB20151115​ [9 April
2016]
Minegishi, H 2016. “Park Geun­hye sets opposing party faction adrift”, Nikkei Asian Review.
Available at:

12. http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics­Economy/Policy­Politics/Park­Geun­hye­sets­opposing­party­facti
on­adrift​ [9 April 2016].
Websites
South Korea ­ Timeline 2015, BBC News. Available at:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world­asia­pacific­15292674​ [9 April 2016].
South Korea Freedom in the World 2015, Freedom House. Available at:
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom­world/2015/south­korea​ [9 April 2016].
The Korean War, 1950­1953, U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian. Available at:
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945­1952/korean­war­2​ [30 March 2016].