Before we get into specific discussion of democratic transition in 1987 some analytic terms related to democratic tradition. Here when I talk about democratic tradition. The tradition becomes possible because their was ongoing authoritarian rule. And what is meant by authoritarian rule or authoritarianism, authoritarianism can be simply defined as arbitrary rule by leaders. It is form limited pluralism, okay? If it is totalitarianism there is no pluralism at all. But in the case of authoritarian rule, there are patterns of interest aggregation and articulation to the government in different manners. However, leader can rule the country by arbitrariness. It is how we define authoritarian rule. Then now, then what is meant by democratic opening? Democratic opening happens when there are emerging cracks on old authoritarian regimes. And with the rising demand of citizens through voice and protesting. And particularly many different scenarios, but in most cases, authoritarian regime, any city is suppressed that kind of citizen protect. But later, if there is trends of big upheaval, and of toppling of regime, then ruling regime ought to come up with some kinds of concessions. And there could be compromise between the ruling regime and citizens protesting against the bullying regime. But in the case when there's a concession and compromise on the parts of the ruling regime, then they're be an opening of new political space for democratic change, okay? And South Korea and Taiwan are the perfect examples, okay? It was very iron fist authoritarian rule. And there was a mass citizen protest. Then rulers in South Korean Taiwan made a compromise. And then there was a long process of negotiation leading to democratic opinion. But here, we've got to remember one thing. The democratic transition, itself, does not guarantee stable democratic consolidation, okay? There could be regression to authoritarian rule. Or, democratic transition can lead to the rise of illiberal democracy. The is a perfect example. Getting back to authoritarian regime can be seen in the case of Egypt and Thailand. And the rise of illiberal democracy can be seen in the Philippines. To some extent, you know, in South Korea too. Then whether the democracy can be stable and mature democracy or not. Really a function of traditional dynamics underlying society and traditional uncertainties. Okay, tradition really matters. Any political faction that can secure ruling coalition can shape the political landscape then why they come into democratic transition? There are many different theories of democratic transition, but we can come up with three major variables. First variable is structure, structure can be simply defined as a distribution of capabilities among contending political actors. Therefore, suppose, okay, you have authoritarian rule, then authoritarian rule would have its supporting coalition. If the supporting coalition size is bigger than opposing coalition, then there is a good chance for the continuation of authoritarian rule. But on the contrary if the opposing coalition is bigger and more powerful than the ruling vested interest then there's a good chance of change. And it's very, very important for us to look into this structural foundation of democratic tradition. Which factions have greater coalitional basis? For example, suppose a country pursues ISI. ISI here refers to to import substitute to industrialization, inwards looking strategy in which National Bourgeoisie. And what he called Aristocratic Labor would get great benefit as can be seen in the past Latin American countries. But on the other hand, you can have another type of development strategy that is export-led growth strategy. That is that can be found in South Korea, Thailand, Singapore, Hong Kong, okay? Here, who has the benefit? Exporters will be beneficiaries, okay? And just ordinary workers who are employed in the export sector to get in a benefit. Depending on which coalition. Is it an ISI related coalition. Or export-led growth strategy related coalition. Which coalition is bigger? Then, that can really effect, political regime character. If you look back at the past, ISI relate in a political regime, the political regimes tend to be rather authoritarian, an export-led growth strategy usually entails shorter short-term authoritarian rule, but in the medium to long-term, there was a transition to democracy. Another factor we should look into is culture. Here culture can be defined as a system of values in which political actions are embedded. But usually, scientists come up with three different kinds of political culture. One is a traditional political culture. It's a patriot, patrimonial, and family oriented kind of tribal culture. They didn't use it to defined as traditional political culture. Then we have more than political culture. More than political culture can be characterized by the values of industry regulation. Growth, stability, and even authority. The third type of political culture is the postmodern political culture. Political scientists in the world argues that contemporary Western Europe shows this kind of postmodern political culture such as ecological. Post-modern in the political culture emphasize ecological integrity, communal values, and change rather than stability, and decentralization rather than centralization. There is quite different kinds of political paradigm. You know, if you look at the culture shift in any given society, you can tell what kind of values can be more predominant. And the predominant cultural value can effect political movement and eventually political and democratic tradition. Finally the political that really matters. All the leading competitive political theories,such as Shibowsky, University of Chicago right now are Professor Shibowsky teaches at the New York University. Or in a Guillermo, O'Donnell, and all these leading political theorists have been arguing that what really matters is a political leadership. Structuring culture serves as a necessary condition. Sufficient condition comes from political leadership choice. When there's a city's in protest, politicals can suppress to the extent that it may result in major revolution. It is a leader's choice. When leader perceive opposition and protest from the civil society's bigger, then the leader can come up with some kind of compromise and the leader can engage in quite long term or short term negotiation with [INAUDIBLE]. And he may come up with ways compromised or negotiated outcome for democratic changes. In certain countries, let a look at the case of Tunisia, when Ali just left when there was a huge citizen protest, okay. That's his choice. Therefore leaders can suppress political opposition and protest. Leaders can just fearful of cities in protest leader can lead the country or either can come up with some kinds of compromise so that they could be negotiated transition to democracy. But ultimately when there was authoritarianism, then there was a authoritarian regime then there was a political democratic opening. Then there was progressive democratic tradition but ultimate goal or destination of democratic tradition is democratic consolidation. There are four types of democratic consolidation. First is representative consolidation. Here The stability of political parties. To what extent did democratic parties are democratic. How they stable. To an extent they really aggregate and articulate citizen's demands and citizens interest. Obviously, restrictive form is an important indicator of representative consolidation. And citizen control of government and politics. In a sense that is real an indicator democratic consolidation. Another important indicator is institutional consolidation. Whether there is a constitutional change for democracy, to what extent check and balance among three branches of government. In the less trajectory in the active duty and the branches working, electoral reforms, decentralization of political power. There also was very important indicators of institutional consolidation. Third consolidation is the structural consolidation. It is somewhat in a evasive concept. It is very difficult for you to really pinpoint in a structured consolidation. But anyhow, still, you can see in every political life to what extent all power retains power or not. Those with old power and vested interests, they are being eradicated in society or not. There's a new democratic forces emerging and to an extent new democratic forces are dominant in society. Those become very important indicators of structural consolidation. Finally behavioral consolidation, it is something to do with ordinary citizen, okay? That's why abides by the rule of law, okay? How about the respect of others? Try to extend your tolerance, and the civic virtue. Those are the very important factors to an extent the so-called constituents of a political system, just ordinary citizens and voters. They behave by norms and values. Those are the very important indicators of behavioral consolidation. Likewise you can clearly see, okay? Authoritarianism, democratic opening, democratic tradition, and democratic consolidation. It is very important for us to look at those different stages in order to understand the democratic tradition in South Korea.
