Presidential politics in Korea vs. US

It is only once every 20 years that the Korean and U.S. presidential elections coincide, so the recent campaigns have provided an excellent opportunity to compare how the political systems work in the two countries. The striking impression is that the state of democracy may be in better shape in Korea than in the U.S. right now.

For example, while all three Korean presidential candidates have espoused centrist platforms, the just concluded U.S. presidential race was highly polarized.

Moreover, the rise of independent candidate Ahn Cheol-soo underscores the flexibility of the Korean political system to embrace third-party candidates, something that is hard to imagine in the U.S. despite widespread public disenchantment with both President Obama and Mitt Romney.

With rising distrust of politicians worldwide in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis, Korea has led the way in its willingness to break with political traditions and support a well-qualified outsider who criticizes what many see as a corrupt and ineffective establishment. That is an extraordinary development in a country that is often seen as conformist.

In contrast, the U.S. appears to be locked in a fossilized two-party political system. The reason that someone like Ahn could not easily emerge in the U.S. is the need for candidates to raise enormous budgets to pay for the TV political ads that constitute the principal form of campaigning. Only billionaires, such as businessman Ross Perot in 1992 and perhaps New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg in the future, have the personal financial resources to mount viable independent presidential campaigns in the U.S.

Although money is also important in Korean politics, the expense of running a presidential election is much less than in the U.S. because of tight restrictions on political advertising and a smaller population. This enables a candidate to launch a campaign in a relatively short space of time.

Korean politics have often been criticized by outside analysts for being driven by personalities rather than ideas. Loyalty to party rather than an individual politician is strong in the U.S. The reverse is true in Korea and has been blamed for the sometime chaotic nature of politics here. But this characteristic of the Korean political system may be seen as an advantage if it allows the emergence of candidates who challenge the status quo. It also encourages compromise because of the constantly shifting nature of political alliances.

On the other hand, the strong institutional framework of political parties in the U.S. is increasingly leading to a rigid system that makes it difficult to achieve political deals between parties or politicians across the aisle. The disciplined nature of U.S. political parties has fostered a high degree of partisanship and increased polarization.

But perhaps the most startling development is how quickly a vibrant democratic process has taken root and matured in Korea. In 1992, the last time that the U.S. and Korea were holding simultaneous presidential elections, Korea was only just embarking on a truly civilian-led political process. Since then, power has gradually devolved from the Blue House to the National Assembly.

In democracy as in economic development, Korea has come far in a short space of time. Despite their frequent complaints about politics, this is something that Koreans should feel proud of. It took the U.S. at least 300 years from the founding of colonial assemblies in the 17thcentury to the Civil Rights Act of 1965 to achieve a fully representative democracy. Korea has achieved the same results in a tenth of that time despite a historical tradition that has always favored some form of authoritarian rule.

It is the “newness” of democracy has that given vitality to the Korean political scene and has made it more open to different influences than in the U.S., which has come to be dominated by an established political class and the special interests of Wall Street and the trade unions.

For example, NGOs and watchdog groups play a more important role in Korea than in the U.S. These movements help provide a direct voice for citizens while keeping the political establishment in check.

The strong influence of the bureaucracy in Korea also represents a useful balance to the role of politicians. Bureaucrats in Korea enjoy public support because of the central role they played in overseeing the country’s rapid economic development. They have a reputation for being professional and impartial. In the U.S., the top echelon of the bureaucracy can suddenly be replaced when a new administration comes into power, making it more politically biased in terms of its policies.

Moreover, the Korean government still attracts the best and brightest when it comes to government services, something that no longer applies in the U.S. where high university fees force graduates to seek better-paying private sector jobs to pay back student loans. A robust and respected bureaucracy serves as a strong safeguard against political extremism.

John Burton, a former Korea correspondent for the Financial Times, is now a Seoul-based independent journalist and media consultant. <The Korea Times/John Burton>