The transnational protection regime and democratic breakthrough in Taiwan and South Korea

Abstract

External state pressure is understood to have played a causally significant role in democratic breakthrough in Taiwan and South Korea during the 1980s. This article problematizes the international dimensions of democratization in Taiwan and South Korea by first providing a revisionist account of external agency which involved complex networks of transnational nonstate and substate actors. These included human rights activists, Christian churches and related ecumenical organizations, members of the Taiwanese and Korean diaspora communities in the US, academics and students, foreign journalists, and members of the US Congress. In forming a transnational “protection regime” during the 1970s and 1980s to protect the political opposition from repressive governments, they contributed to the development of effective democratic movements. The case studies provide us with a more comprehensive view of the international dimensions of democratization, speaking to both the country specific and general theoretical literatures on democratization at the same time

Military Rule in South Korea Revisited: Different Survival Strategies and Different Pathways

“…While Levitsky and Way (2006: 380) claim that the “international dimension of democratization” was less significant in East Asia, there is no doubt that, other than the US government (McKoy and Miller, 2012; Stueck 1998), international actors affected the democratization of South Korea. As Ooi (2014) maintains, for instance, the networks of transnational actors including human rights activists, Christian churches, members of the Korean diaspora communities, and members of the US Congress contributed to democratic movements in Korea.…”

“…Chang (2015) demonstrates that seeds of civil society were embodied even under Park's violent rule. Growing civil society was also linked to the transnational protection regime (Ooi, 2014).…”

Unbuilding from the Inside: Leadership and Democratization in South Africa and South Korea

“…The decision of Roh Tae Woo to liberalize and democratize the regime was driven by pressure from below as well as externally (see Ooi 2014). However, his position was essential as he 'represented an important symbol of continuity that bridged the transition from the old regime to the young democracy' (Croissant 2004: 371; see also Moon and Rhyu 2011).…”