Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:10:18.650Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Party Mergers and Splits in New Democracies: The Case of South Korea (1987–2007)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2013

Kyungmee Park
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study explores how a party's organizational mode affects its stability in new democracies. A party organization was stable under these three conditions: when the relationship from lower to upper organizations has institutionalized a strong vertical organization mode; when the central party power is concentrated on the leadership; and when the leadership has been safely shifted after elections. In the case of two ruling parties in South Korea, each mode produced differences in party stability. The dissimilar organization modes of two parties resulted in different organizational stability.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , 2010 , pp. 531 - 552
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2010.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Janda, Kenneth, Political Parties: A Cross-National Survey, New York, The Free Press, 1980, p. 162 Google Scholar.

2 Tavits, Margit, ‘Party System Change’, Party Politics, 12: 1 (January 2006), p. 107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Tavits, Margit, ‘Party Systems in the Making’, British Journal of Political Science, 38: 1 (January 2008), p. 114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Peter Mair, Party System Change, New York, Clarendon Press, 1997, p. 191.

5 The democratization eroded the ‘anti-communist’ banner with which the authoritarian ruling parties gained legitimacy, and instead aligned competitive elections and other political cleavages – i.e. democracy versus anti-democracy, and regionalism. These cleavages divided voter support into two, which became the stable basis of the two parties' electoral victories.

6 Dahl, R. A., Toward Democracy, Berkeley, CA, Institute of Government Studies Press, 1997 Google Scholar.

7 Huntington, Samuel P., Political Order in Changing Societies, New Haven, CT, and London, Yale University Press, 1968, pp. 398–99Google Scholar.

8 Huntington, Political Order, pp. 12–24.

9 Scott Mainwaring and Timothy R. Scully (eds), Building Democratic Institutions, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1995.

10 Kim, Sujin, ‘Critical Analysis of Korean Political Parties in Democratic Transition’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 2: 1 (June 1996)Google Scholar; Yongho Kim, Understanding of Korean Party Politics, Seoul, Nanam Publishing House, 2001 (in Korean).

11 Spirova, Maria, Political Parties in Post-Communist Societies, New York, Palgrave, 2007, p. 14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Mainwaring and Scully, Building Democratic Institutions, p. 4.

13 Mair, Party System Change, p. 5.

14 Randall, Vicky and Svåsand, Lars, ‘Party Institutionalization in New Democracies’, Party Politics, 8: 1 (January 2002), p. 13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Wallis, Darren, ‘Democratizing a Hegemonic Regime’, Democratization, 10: 3 (August 2003), p. 21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Alan Ware, Political Parties and Party Systems, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 228.

17 Van Biezen, Ingrid, ‘On the Internal Balance of Party Power’, Party Politics, 6: 4 (October 2000), p. 396 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Kitschelt, Herbert, ‘Linkages between Citizens and Politicians in Democratic Polities’, Comparative Political Studies, 33: 6–7 (AugustSeptember 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Spirova, Political Parties in Post-Communist Societies, p. 2.

20 Dix, Robert H., ‘Democratization and the Institutionalization of Latin American Political Parties’, Comparative Political Studies, 24: 4 (January 1992), p. 490 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Hug, Simon, Altering Party Systems, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 2001, pp. 13–14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Janda, Political Parties, chapter 3. p. 21.

23 A successor party, in general, refers to a party which took over the resources and human forces of communist parties in the post-communist countries. Unlike communist parties, there are differences among Korean parties in terms of ideological orientation. After democratization, anti-communism under authoritarianism was substituted for democracy versus anti-democracy cleavage and regionalism which divided voting patterns into two regions. Democratic consolidation in the 2000s realigned; generational voting patterns and new types of participation such as the internet or candlelight vigils. For analysis and application of successor parties, see Spirova, Political Parties in Post-Communist Societies; Ishiyama, John T., ‘Party Organization and the Political Success of the Communist Successor Parties’, Social Science Quarterly, 82: 4 (December 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Panebianco defines a horizontal relationship by a central party's relationship with external support networks. He asserts that the existence of a strong external support network does not positively affect a strong organization's development. Still, in Korea, it is no exaggeration to say that there is virtually no external support network considering the low level of subscription to a party and vulnerable organizational structure. Thus, this study lays down a horizontal relationship as a party's relationship with non-party individual supporters rather than as an institutionalized support organization. See Angelo Panebianco, Political Parties, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp. 63–5.

25 Ibid., pp. 63–5.

26 Ibid., p. 160.

27 Ibid., pp. 55–7.

28 Figure 1 has been modified and redrawn from Panebianco, Political Parties, p. 57. Party Z1 (h1, v0) assumes a combination of parties comprised of one person. Party Z1 has only a horizontal relationship and internal cohesion becomes hard to achieve. On the other hand, Party Z2 (h0, v1) managed and organized by early party members only, with no record of joining or defecting can be found in a one-party country where the whole nation is affiliated or is maintained in a very vulnerable and closed structure. In reality, individual parties will locate themselves somewhere between Z1 and Z2 just like P1, P2, and P3.

29 ‘New Party turns to Tripartite Interim Management System’, Kyunghyang Shinmun, 26 January 1990 (in Korean).

30 Hyunwoo Kim, History of Movement for Korean Political Parties, Seoul, Eul-Yoo Publishing Co, 2000, p. 676 (in Korean).

31 The DJP, established in 1980, took over the Democratic Republican Party as intact (established in 1960) and concentrated on organizational management through the party with the purpose of the regime's stable maintenance. The DJP, as the ruling party and with long experience of organizational management, had a lower level organization stronger than those of other parties. For the DJP's organizational management strategies, see ‘Permanent Rule Scenario of Duhwan Jeon Coming to Nothing’, Shindonga, December 1988, pp. 302–13 (in Korean).

32 ‘The DLP Issues Warning Letters’, Kyunghyang Shinmun, 9 August 1990 (in Korean).

33 The idea of open recruitment advertisement in the daily newspapers began from a strong request of former movement forces and the DAP faction who sought to break away from the DP image under the strong influence of Daejung Kim. However, there was no expectation that such selection process would lead to effective organization at the lower level. It was only because they had no vested rights to maintain and they expected to work as checks against Kim's strong influence. Kyungmee Park, ‘Continuities and Changes of Party Organizations in Korea’, doctoral thesis, Seoul, Ewha Womans University, pp. 192–4 (in Korean).

34 ‘Discussion of Personnel Selection’, Segye Times, 16 November 1991 (in Korean).

35 ‘Polemic against Secret Designates for Organizers of the DP’, Dong-A Ilbo, 6 December 1991 (in Korean).