韩国的候选人选拔改革:尽管有包容性的规则,但排他性做法的持续存在

IF 1.4 4区 社会学 Q1 AREA STUDIES Pacific Affairs Pub Date : 2020-12-01 DOI:10.5509/2020934735
E. Woo
{"title":"韩国的候选人选拔改革:尽管有包容性的规则,但排他性做法的持续存在","authors":"E. Woo","doi":"10.5509/2020934735","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyzes how democratization has affected the dynamics of candidate selection in South Korea. After democratization in the late 1980s, it was expected that intra-party democracy would follow. In response to increasing public demand, the major parties adopted primary systems\n in the early 2000s. Nonetheless, most candidates for the legislature are still nominated by a small number of central party elites without additional ballots in the local branches. To explain the persistence of such exclusive, centralized features of candidate selection, I highlight the limited\n impact democratization has had on the political environment in which the parties operate. More specifically, since the 1987 democratization process resulted in a compromise agreement established by a small number of party leaders, South Korea retained much of the political legacy from authoritarian\n times, such as an electoral system advantageous to the major parties and legal provisions restricting electoral campaigns, party activities, and political participation. The continuation of these political institutions makes radical candidate selection reform highly unlikely as the party elites\n have no incentive to expand and decentralize the selection process. Without significant changes to the political institutions at the national level, the dominance of the central party elite over the final outcome of candidate selection looks likely to continue for the foreseeable future.","PeriodicalId":47041,"journal":{"name":"Pacific Affairs","volume":"93 1","pages":"735-758"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Candidate Selection Reform in South Korea: The Persistence of Exclusive Practices Despite Inclusive Rules\",\"authors\":\"E. Woo\",\"doi\":\"10.5509/2020934735\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper analyzes how democratization has affected the dynamics of candidate selection in South Korea. After democratization in the late 1980s, it was expected that intra-party democracy would follow. In response to increasing public demand, the major parties adopted primary systems\\n in the early 2000s. Nonetheless, most candidates for the legislature are still nominated by a small number of central party elites without additional ballots in the local branches. To explain the persistence of such exclusive, centralized features of candidate selection, I highlight the limited\\n impact democratization has had on the political environment in which the parties operate. More specifically, since the 1987 democratization process resulted in a compromise agreement established by a small number of party leaders, South Korea retained much of the political legacy from authoritarian\\n times, such as an electoral system advantageous to the major parties and legal provisions restricting electoral campaigns, party activities, and political participation. The continuation of these political institutions makes radical candidate selection reform highly unlikely as the party elites\\n have no incentive to expand and decentralize the selection process. Without significant changes to the political institutions at the national level, the dominance of the central party elite over the final outcome of candidate selection looks likely to continue for the foreseeable future.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47041,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pacific Affairs\",\"volume\":\"93 1\",\"pages\":\"735-758\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pacific Affairs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5509/2020934735\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacific Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5509/2020934735","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文分析了民主化对韩国候选人选拔动态的影响。在20世纪80年代末的民主化之后,预计党内民主将随之而来。为了应对日益增长的公众需求,主要政党在21世纪初采用了初级制度。尽管如此,大多数立法机构候选人仍然由少数中央政党精英提名,而地方分支机构没有额外的选票。为了解释候选人选拔中这种排他性、集中性特征的持续存在,我强调民主化对政党运作的政治环境影响有限。更具体地说,由于1987年的民主化进程导致少数政党领导人达成妥协协议,韩国保留了独裁时代的大部分政治遗产,例如对主要政党有利的选举制度和限制竞选、政党活动和政治参与的法律规定。这些政治制度的延续使得激进的候选人选拔改革极不可能,因为党内精英没有动力扩大和分散选拔过程。如果国家一级的政治机构没有重大变化,中央政党精英对候选人选拔最终结果的主导地位在可预见的未来可能会继续。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Candidate Selection Reform in South Korea: The Persistence of Exclusive Practices Despite Inclusive Rules
This paper analyzes how democratization has affected the dynamics of candidate selection in South Korea. After democratization in the late 1980s, it was expected that intra-party democracy would follow. In response to increasing public demand, the major parties adopted primary systems in the early 2000s. Nonetheless, most candidates for the legislature are still nominated by a small number of central party elites without additional ballots in the local branches. To explain the persistence of such exclusive, centralized features of candidate selection, I highlight the limited impact democratization has had on the political environment in which the parties operate. More specifically, since the 1987 democratization process resulted in a compromise agreement established by a small number of party leaders, South Korea retained much of the political legacy from authoritarian times, such as an electoral system advantageous to the major parties and legal provisions restricting electoral campaigns, party activities, and political participation. The continuation of these political institutions makes radical candidate selection reform highly unlikely as the party elites have no incentive to expand and decentralize the selection process. Without significant changes to the political institutions at the national level, the dominance of the central party elite over the final outcome of candidate selection looks likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pacific Affairs
Pacific Affairs AREA STUDIES-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Pacific Affairs has, over the years, celebrated and fostered a community of scholars and people active in the life of Asia and the Pacific. It has published scholarly articles of contemporary significance on Asia and the Pacific since 1928. Its initial incarnation from 1926 to 1928 was as a newsletter for the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR), but since May 1928, it has been published continuously as a quarterly under the same name. The IPR was a collaborative organization established in 1925 by leaders from several YMCA branches in the Asia Pacific, to “study the conditions of the Pacific people with a view to the improvement of their mutual relations.”
期刊最新文献
Department of Error. Management of Recurrent and Refractory Posterior Epistaxis by Transnasal Endoscopic Sphenopalatine Artery Cauterization: a Prospective Cohort Study. "Ambiguous" Network Monarchy as Problematic Euphoric Couplet Governing the COVID-19 Pandemic in Malaysia: Shifting Capacity under a Fragmented Political Leadership Presidential Personality and Foreign Policy Decision-Making: The Sunshine Policy under Kim Dae-jung (1998–2003)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1