3 ms·
That's not quite accurate. The dominance of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) for most of the post-war period has led to critiques regarding the vibrancy of p
by greenavocado 3y ago
That's not quite accurate.
The dominance of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) for most of the post-war period has led to critiques regarding the vibrancy of political competition and the effective functioning of democracy.
The chaebols, those massive family-run conglomerates, have essentially been the architects behind South Korea's economic renaissance since the '60s. Think Samsung, Hyundai, LG - these giants spearheaded the transformation from a post-war economy to an industrial powerhouse, under the guidance of policies favoring heavy industrialization and export-led growth. It's fascinating to see how the government played matchmaker here, doling out financial support and monopolistic privileges like candy at a parade. This strategic play birthed the "Miracle on the Han River," flipping the script from poverty to prosperity.
But, as with all tales of meteoric rise, there's a darker subplot. The symbiosis between the chaebols and political elites isn't all roses. Issues of corruption, nepotism, and economic dominance cloud this success story, leading to a wave of calls for corporate governance reform and efforts to dilute their power.
On a different note, South Korea's journey to democracy is a saga of its own. Decades of authoritarian rule gave way in the late '80s, thanks to the collective might of students, intellectuals, and labor activists. The June Democratic Uprising in '87 was a game-changer, forcing the military regime's hand to pave the way for democratic reforms and the country's first free presidential election later that year.
- thisislife2 3y agoQuite true - and even with democracies like Japan and India, it is quite apparent from their early history that they were kind of autocratic democracies with one large party / leader / family in power for a long period. In India, the Indian National Congress ruled for nearly 5+ decades since independence, and 3 of its Prime Ministers were dynasts (Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi) from the same family. Note also that in Japan and South Korea, the US had a vested interest in not allowing democracy to thrive.
- screye 3y agoI'm Indian, I would seriously question anyone who considers India to be an 'economically successful' democracy. 400 million Indians still make less than many sub-saharan African nations. India is admittedly stable. But it was very much an economic failure. Things only started turning around in the mid-90s.
- wolverine876 3y agoLet's not forget that before the 1990s, there were the partitions with Pakistan and Pakistan-Bangladesh, Indira Gandhi's seizure of power ... > 400 million Indians still make less than many sub-saharan African nations. Yes, and they are more important than all the programmers in Bangalore. Also, non-Hindu Indians, including those who are Muslim, are relegated to second-class status (which also must affect their economic opportunity).
- suslik 3y ago> they are more important than all the programmers in Bangalore. What do you mean by this?
- wolverine876 3y agoI mean that much of the focus on India is on the "programmers in Bangalore" (which I'm using as a metaphor for the general economic boom). The people who remain in poverty are much more important, a much higher priority, IMHO. I'm not criticizing the economic boom per se - it provides resources that have allowed huge numbers to escape poverty.
- leosanchez 3y ago> Yes, and they are more important than all the programmers in Bangalore. This doesn't make any sense. > Also, non-Hindu Indians, including those who are Muslim, are relegated to second-class status (which also must affect their economic opportunity). This is not true.
- wolverine876 3y ago> This is not true. Perhaps you'd like to offer some more depth? There is lots and lots of evidence otherwise. For example, India's program of 'reclaiming' Muslim land for Hindu temples.
- leosanchez 3y agoHot take, I wouldn't consider India as a proper democracy at all the way political parties are setup India is a temporary dictatorship.
- wolverine876 3y agoIndia's economic boom came under the democractic governments post-1990. Modi is, arguably, riding that wave.