Preprint / Version 1

South Korea's Democracy on the Brink of Death

Political Polarization and the Diabolical Soundscape

##article.authors##

  • Kiseong Kim Graduate Faculty of Interdisciplinary Research, Graduate School, University of Yamanashi

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51094/jxiv.1115

Keywords:

Democracy, Political Polarization, Deliberative Democracy, Political Discourse, Korean Politics

Abstract

    Following the democratization of the South Korean political landscape in 1987,the nation has undergone a transition from an authoritarian regime to a democratic system. However, in recent years, the nation has experienced an intensification of political polarization, which has placed democracy in crisis. The political landscape is dominated by two major parties representing the conservative and progressive camps, respectively. These opposing factions have come to view each other not as legitimate political competitors but as enemies to be eradicated. This antagonism has also led to a sharp increase in emotional polarization among their supporters. This ongoing polarization underscores the enduring influence of the nation's historical trajectory, particularly the lingering memory of ideological adversaries from the Cold War era, the period of political repression during military authoritarianism, and the triumph of the pro-democracy movement which was legitimized by the delegitimization of authoritarian rule. The current state of extreme political polarization in South Korea has consequently engendered a critical crisis within the nation's democratic system. To address this crisis, it is imperative that consensus-based democratic institutions be expanded in order to mitigate the effects of polarization. Furthermore, for South Korean democracy to evolve beyond the current state of hatred and toward a more inclusive and rational environment, deliberative democratic solutions must be implemented.

Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

The author declare no conflicts of interest associated with this manuscript.

Downloads *Displays the aggregated results up to the previous day.

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bächtiger, A. and J. S. Dryzek (2024) Deliberative Democracy for Diabolical Times: Confronting Populism, Extremis, Denial, and Authoritarianism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Diamond, Larry (2021) “Democratic Regression in Comparative Perspective: Scope, Methods, and Causes,” Democratization 28(1):22-42.

Dryzek, J. S., A. Bächtiger, S. Chambers, J. Cohen, J. N. Druckman, A. Felicetti, J. S. Fishkin, D. M. Farrell, A. Fung, A. Gutmann, H Landemore, J. Mansbridge, S. Marien, M. A. Neblo, S. Niemeyer, M. Setälä, R. Slothuus, J. Suiter, D. Thompson, and M. E. Warren (2019) “The Crisis of Democracy and the Science of Deliberation: Citizen Can Avoid Polarization and Make Sound Decisions,” Science 363(6432):1144-1146.

Dryzek, Johne S. (1990) Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Fishkin, James. S. (2009) When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Habermas, Jürgen (1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contribution to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. trans. W. Rehg, Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Kabaservice, Geoffrey (2024) “We’ll Be Spared the Rematch that Almost Nobody Wanted,” Politico, Jul. 21.

Levitsky S. and D. Ziblatt (2018) How Democracies Die: What History Reveals about Our Future. New York: Penguin Books.

Levitsky S. and D. Ziblatt (2023) Tyranny of the Minority: How to Reverse an Authoritarian Turn and Forge a Democracy for All. New York: Penguin Books.

Linz, J. J. and A. Valenzuela ed. (1994) The Failure of Presidential Democracy: Comparative Perspectives. Baltimore: Jons Hopkins University Press.

Mickey, R., S. Levitsky, and L. A. Way (2017) “Is America Still Safe for Democracy? Why the United States Is in Danger of Backsliding,” Foreign Affairs 96(3):20-29.

Mills, M. Anthony (2023) “Why So Many Americans Are Losing Trust in Science,” The New York Times, Oct. 3.

OECD (2020) Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave, Paris: OECD Publishing.

Silver, L., J. Fetterolf, and A. Connaughton (2021) Diversity and Division in Advanced Economies. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center, October.

OECD(経済協力開発機構)Open Government Unit(2023)『世界に学ぶミニ・パブリックス─くじ引きと熟議による民主主義のつくりかた─』(日本ミニ・パブリックス研究フォーラム訳)学芸出版社。

オギヨン(2019)『민족의 비원[民族の悲願]』東田呉基永全集第2巻、모시는 사람들[モシヌンサラムドゥル出版社]。

カンジュンマン(2022)『반지성주의:우리의 자화상[反知性主義:我々の自画像]』인물과 사상사[人物と思想社]。

キムキソン(1996)「한국정치의 이항대립 구조와 정치담론의 상관성: 이항대립적 담론실천에 대한 비판[韓国政治の二項対立構造と政治言説の相関性:二項対立的言説実践に対する批判]」博士学位論文、延世大学大学院政治学会、1-238頁。

キムホギ(2019)「韓国のろうそく革命を歴史に位置づける」(矢野百合子訳)『世界』917号、岩波書店、150-156頁。

キムマンフム(2022)『포퓰리즘의 정치전쟁:종교화된 진영정치[ポピュリズムの政治:宗教化された陣営政治]』한울[ハンウル出版社]。

キムヨンジュ・オ・セウック(2024)「누가, 왜 뉴스를 회피하는가?[誰がなぜニュースを回避するのか]」Media Issue、10(4),한국언론재단[韓国言論財団]、1-17頁

コウォン(2023)「선거제 개편 논의, 왜 침체에 부딪혔나?: 새로운 대안 및 전략에 대한 모색[選挙制度改変論議、なぜ停滞に直面したのか?:新しい代案と戦略の模索]」NARS Current Issues and Analysis, No. 294, 국회입법조사처[国会立法調査処]、1-14頁。

ソヒギョン(2023)『87년 체제의 한국헌정사: 1987-2017[87年体制の韓国憲政史]』포럼[フォーラム出版社]。

チンジュングォン(2020a)『진보는 어떻게 몰락하는가[革新はどのように没落するのか]』천년의 상상[千年の想像出版社]。

チンジュングォン(2020b)『진중권 보수를 말하다[チン・ジュングォン保守を語る]』동아일보사[東亜日報社]。

パーネビアンコ、アンジェロ(2005)『政党─組織と権力─』(村上信一郎訳)ミネルヴァ書房。

パクサンフン(2023)『혐오하는 민주주의: 팬덤 정치란 무엇이고 왜 문제인가[嫌悪する民主主義:ファンダム政治とは何であり、なぜ問題なのか]』 후마니타스[フマニタス出版社]。

パクジュン・リュヒョンスック(2023)『정치양극화시대 한국민주주의의 발전 방안[政治両極化時代における韓国民主主義の発展方案]』한국행정연구원[韓国行政研究院]。

パクジュン(2023)「한국의 정치 양극화 현황과 제도적 대안에 관한 국민인식조사[韓国の政治両極化現況と制度的代案に関する国民認識調査]」한국행정연구원[韓国行政研究院]、1-8頁。

ユンヒスック(2021)『정치의 배신[政治の背信]』쌤앤파커스[サムアンドパーカス出版社]。

Posted


Submitted: 2025-03-02 03:10:14 UTC

Published: 2025-03-11 00:58:18 UTC
Section
Law, Political Sciences