Political Regionalism in South Korea

Prof Timothy Lim from California State University argued that the legacy of "strong leaders, weak parties" is insufficient in explaining two decades (1987-2007) "of continuous and seemingly endless instability and volatility" in South Korean politics.

After all, other political systems - such as Taiwan's - underwent broadly similar process but emerged with relatively strong and stable party systems.

What set South Korea apart is what Lim described as "the impact of hyper-regionalism."

Regionalism has long-standing historical origins but was exacerbated and amplified, "if not given its most significant meaning, during authoritarian rule."

The predominant political cleavage is territorial and revolves around the deep fissures between Gyeongsang provinces in the southeast and Jeolla provinces in the southwest.

"The marriage of personalism and regionalism ... compelled political leaders to eschew clear-cut ideological or nationally-oriented policy agendas, since they had to appeal to every voter within their region regardless of class, socio-economic, or other non-territorial distinctions. The result was a further weakening of party politics," Lim wrote. (The Dynamics of Party Politics in Korea, in Insight Into Korea, Herald Media 2007).

"Most salient was the establishment of a strong presidential system, which undercut the autonomy of both ruling and opposition parties," Lim added.

Other institutional procedures contributing to the fragility of political parties include the lack of primaries, and an electoral system based on limited proportional representation and the first-past-the-post principle.

"In isolation, none of these institutional features can or should be regarded as a "cause" of party instability , but in the context of South Korean politics - with its particular cleavage structure, its legacy of strong leaders, and its culture based on interpersonal networks - each contributed to the creation of what some scholars call, a state of "hyper-presidentialism."