[Special Report on Promoting Democracy] The Role of the South Korean National Assembly in Promoting Global Democracy

I. Introduction

Democracies worldwide are confronting domestic and international challenges (Bartels et al. 2023). Internationally, the spread of authoritarianism is intensifying, alongside escalating conflicts between democratic and authoritarian blocs. The 2023 Democracy Report, published by the V-Dem Institute, assessed that the global level of democracy in 2022 had regressed to 1986 levels, with the Asia-Pacific region experiencing a particularly sharp decline to only 1978 levels. According to the report, over the past decade, 35 countries have seen a decline in freedom of the press, 47 countries have experienced increased government censorship, 37 countries have faced intensified government crackdowns on civil society, and 30 countries have seen a deterioration in election quality. Within democratic nations, concerns about democratic backsliding are also rising (Graham and Svolik 2020; Grumbach 2023; Svolik et al. 2023). Democratic backsliding manifests in various forms, including increased political polarization and populism, the spread of fake news through social media, and the authoritarianization of political processes due to the weakening of democratic institutions and norms (Levitsky and Ziblatt 2019; Orhan 2022).

South Korea's democracy is not immune to these issues. Concerns exist that South Korean democracy is gradually regressing due to political polarization, the emergence of strongly partisan voters, and the spread of populism (Kwon 2023; Shin 2020). However, by international standards, our democracy maintains a high level. According to the V-Dem Institute's Democracy Report, as of 2023, there are 32 countries maintaining liberal democratic systems, and among them, South Korea's liberal democracy level ranks 28th globally, positioning it as a leading liberal democracy in Asia alongside Japan and Taiwan. As South Korea's democratic international standing rises, calls for the international community to support fragile emerging democracies are growing. South Korea's co-hosting of the second Summit for Democracy in March with the United States, Costa Rica, the Netherlands, and Zambia, and its agreement to host the third Summit for Democracy in 2024, are responses to these demands. However, for South Korea's efforts to promote global democracy to be more than a one-off event, an institutional foundation must be established to support them. Against this backdrop, the East Asia Institute (EAI) held two discussion sessions on the theme 'South Korea's Role in Establishing Democracy and Ensuring Electoral Fairness.'

II. Milestone 1: Case Studies of Overseas Institutions Supporting Global Democracy Promotion

In the first session, held in November 2022, experts from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), and the Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL) participated and introduced their respective organizations' activities in promoting democracy.

1. National Endowment for Democracy (NED)

The U.S. NED was established in 1983 as an independent, non-profit foundation. NED utilizes an annual budget approved by Congress and disbursed through the Department of State to conduct over 2,000 grant projects in more than 100 countries. While NED's continued operations are supported by consistent backing from Congress and the White House, the actual execution of allocated funds is solely within the discretion of NED's Board of Directors. NED strives to strengthen institutional frameworks and procedures for free and fair elections worldwide, establish the rule of law to consolidate liberal democracy, protect individual freedoms, and promote social diversity. As a non-governmental organization, NED plays a crucial role in complementing the U.S. government's official efforts to promote democracy, as it can continue its activities in situations where governmental relations are absent or too complex for direct U.S. government involvement. Furthermore, NED's small size and non-bureaucratic structure allow for rapid and flexible responses to sudden political changes or crises. NED's independence also facilitates collaboration with organizations that are hesitant to accept direct financial support from the U.S. government.

NED was launched through bipartisan efforts by the Democratic and Republican parties, which forms the basis for NED's sustained and broad support from the U.S. Congress, irrespective of political spectrum. NED maintains a special relationship with four core grantees: the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI), the Solidarity Center, and the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), which represent the two major U.S. parties, the labor movement, and the business community, respectively. Each organization has its unique objectives: NDI and IRI focus on promoting diversity and free and fair elections, CIPE on free markets and economic reform, and the Solidarity Center on the independence of labor unions. NED strives to maintain balance among these organizations, for instance, by providing equal proportions of grants. Through these efforts, NED embeds bipartisanship in its organizational structure and assures the U.S. Congress and other stakeholders that it embraces a balanced approach to democracy. Moreover, NED transparently discloses all its grant-making and operational activities and is subject to audits by the U.S. Congress, the Department of State, and independent bodies.

2. National Democratic Institute (NDI)

Since its establishment in 1983, NDI has operated in over 150 countries and currently maintains more than 50 field offices. NDI secures its funding through contributions from over 160 organizations, including the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. Department of State, other international development organizations, and individuals who support NDI's mission of promoting democracy. As a non-profit, non-governmental organization, NDI maintains political neutrality and independence from government. Although it has a loose affiliation with the Democratic Party, it does not operate within the United States and does not take any stance on U.S. domestic elections. NDI supports a variety of activities internationally, such as strengthening the capacity of political parties, civil society, and governmental bodies; improving governance; promoting free and fair elections; and enhancing citizen participation. To achieve these goals, NDI maintains close collaboration with local partners, offering them diverse advice beneficial for democratic development and assisting them in adapting these principles to their specific national contexts and needs.

3. Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL)

ANFREL was established in 1997 to promote democracy in the Asian region. ANFREL is also a non-political and independent international organization, an alliance of civil society organizations in Asia that share the vision that governments should be established through free and fair elections. As of 2023, it comprises 28 organizations from 18 countries. ANFREL's main activities are structured around three pillars: Election Observation, Capacity Building for civil society, and Campaign & Advocacy. Election Observation involves monitoring whether the overall electoral process is conducted in accordance with national laws and international standards by independent individuals or organizations. Since its first election observation mission during the 1998 Cambodian general election, ANFREL has conducted over 65 election observation missions across Asia. ANFREL also regularly organizes workshops to enhance the capacity of civil society organizations, media, and other stakeholders working for free and fair elections in Asia, and has established the Asian Electoral Resource Center. Campaign & Advocacy activities include raising awareness about election-related issues in Asia and supporting stakeholders and civil society organizations striving to improve election quality. ANFREL conducts these activities in close cooperation with NDI and NED.

Along with brief introductions to each organization's activities, representatives from NDI and ANFREL proposed the following points regarding South Korea's role in promoting democracy: First, activities promoting democracy should be considered as a fundamental principle within broader, long-term plans such as national security strategies or development agendas, rather than pursued in isolation. South Korea's dynamic experience in democratic development can be beneficial to emerging democracies undergoing democratization, and South Korea possesses the capacity to do so. Consideration could be given to aligning current South Korean development aid programs with efforts to promote democracy. Implementing programs for democracy promotion could also help enhance the understanding of democratic values among the South Korean government and its citizens. Second, efforts to support democracy should not be confined to government-to-government relations but should encompass the entire society, including the legislature, civil society, and the media. Global democracy support is an area where bipartisan cooperation is possible, transcending partisan interests. In the United States, despite extreme political polarization making cooperation on domestic issues very difficult between Democrats and Republicans, cooperation continues regarding global democracy support. In this regard, the South Korean National Assembly could consider exchanging opinions with legislative bodies in neighboring Asian countries through bipartisan efforts, and furthermore, consider establishing and supporting a non-partisan private foundation with political independence, similar to the U.S. NED.

III. Milestone 2: Domestic Experts' Discussions on South Korea's Role

In the second session, held in May 2023, building upon the discussions from the first session, domestic experts engaged in deliberations on South Korea's role in establishing democracy and ensuring electoral fairness. Participants included members of the National Assembly, academic experts, representatives from the National Election Commission, the Association of World Election Bodies, and civil society organizations. The participants agreed that the South Korean National Assembly should take a more active role in promoting global democracy. While various parliamentary diplomacy activities are currently underway through forums such as the Parliamentary Diplomacy Forum and Parliamentary Friendship Groups, their scope and content fall short of international expectations for South Korea. The following points were discussed regarding the role of the National Assembly:

First, drawing from examples such as the U.S. NED, the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy (TFD), and the UK's Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the National Assembly could consider directly contributing to global democracy support by establishing and supporting/overseeing a private foundation with political independence. Furthermore, as exemplified by the U.S. NED, such activities could serve as an opportunity to foster bipartisan cooperation within the South Korean National Assembly. However, currently, concerns about increasing political polarization and controversies surrounding election fraud in South Korea lead many, including National Assembly members and the public, to express significant concerns about the state of domestic democracy. In this context, arguments for South Korea to actively contribute to promoting global democracy face limitations in gaining traction. Therefore, establishing a democracy foundation in South Korea and supporting it with government funds may not be feasible in the immediate term and requires a more long-term perspective.

Second, in the medium to long term, it is necessary to consider enacting new legislation or amending existing laws to facilitate South Korea's ongoing global democracy support initiatives. South Korea enacted the Framework Act on International Development Cooperation upon joining the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) as a donor country in 2010. Subsequently, a comprehensive amendment was passed by the National Assembly in 2020 to address criticisms regarding the lack of a comprehensive strategy, fragmentation of projects, and inadequate post-project management. However, the proportion of South Korea's democracy support activities within Official Development Assistance (ODA) and international cooperation projects remains small. This is partly due to concerns about criticisms that development aid is being used with political intentions to demand democratization or implant democratic values as a condition for aid. Historically, democracy-related development aid has focused on knowledge sharing and training programs related to institutional reform. Support for electoral processes, in particular, has primarily involved the National Election Commission sharing Korean experiences and knowledge with election management bodies in developing countries and supporting improvements in their electoral management systems. Currently, South Korea's activities contributing to the establishment of democratic governance in the international community are quantitatively and qualitatively minimal. To plan and implement projects that reflect professional and systematic consideration of democracy, it is necessary to manage these activities in an integrated and efficient manner through legislative reform. Specifically, it is crucial to legally define the scope of activities related to building democratic governance within the framework of current foreign aid, ensuring smooth budget allocation and thereby enhancing the stability of funding and the sustainability of projects.

Third, for such legislative efforts to be substantively realized, it is essential to build consensus on the necessity of South Korea playing a role in establishing democracy and ensuring electoral fairness internationally, and to establish a platform where interested National Assembly members can gather and collaborate. Initially, efforts should be made to raise awareness among National Assembly members about the implications of South Korea's democratization experience for global democracy promotion. As National Assembly elections are primarily focused on domestic issues, contributing to global democracy promotion and the international community does not significantly enhance an incumbent's re-election prospects. Moreover, even if some members are interested, there is no established system to develop these interests into concrete policies. Specific measures to change this situation must be considered. Firstly, workshops and seminars on global democracy promotion should be organized for National Assembly members, providing expert lectures to raise awareness of international expectations and the importance of global democracy support. Secondly, a platform is needed for interested members to gather and discuss these issues. Additionally, activities to draw public attention, such as public hearings that gather opinions from stakeholders including National Assembly members, experts, and civil society organizations, should be conducted concurrently.

IV. Conclusion

Recently, there has been a growing international demand for South Korea, as a successful case of democratization, to contribute more significantly to global democracy promotion. South Korea's agreement to host the third Summit for Democracy in 2024 can be understood as a response to this demand. The National Assembly, as the legislative body representing South Korean democracy, also needs to engage more actively in efforts to promote democratic values and human rights globally. Unfortunately, the current level of awareness within our National Assembly regarding international issues such as global democracy promotion remains rudimentary. This is intrinsically linked to the insufficient consensus, both in public opinion and within the National Assembly, on the need for South Korea to contribute to global democracy promotion, given the prevailing concerns about domestic democracy, including increasing political polarization and controversies over election fraud.

Therefore, efforts are needed to first raise awareness within the National Assembly regarding global democracy support. A platform should be established where National Assembly members can be informed of international expectations regarding South Korea's role, share South Korea's democratization experiences, and discuss the specific roles the National Assembly can play in contributing to global democracy promotion. In this sense, establishing a bipartisan group, tentatively named the 'Democracy Caucus,' could serve as a starting point. Even in the United States, where the confrontation between Democrats and Republicans is described as reaching an extreme due to political polarization, bipartisan groups have been formed to address nationally important issues, transcending partisan differences. A prime example is the Problem Solvers Caucus, formed in 2017, which now comprises about 60 members from both parties and has taken independent stances on various issues such as responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, infrastructure development, healthcare reform, and immigration. As global democracy support is an issue that can garner bipartisan support, the Democracy Caucus could provide an opportunity for members from different parties to come together and exchange views.

Furthermore, it is necessary to consider reforming relevant laws or enacting new legislation to ensure that South Korea's current global democracy support initiatives are conducted more systematically and sustainably. Current South Korean development aid projects primarily focus on economic development or social progress. Aid projects in the political sphere, including democracy support, are not only small in scale but also fragmented. Consequently, these programs have limitations in exerting a sustained influence on the democratic development of recipient countries. Stable funding is particularly crucial for the successful implementation of international aid projects. Funding availability not only affects procurement but also critically influences the feasibility and long-term sustainability of an initiative. Insufficient or inconsistent funding can weaken project continuity and ultimately lead to the failure of the initiative itself.

In the medium to long term, considering our current circumstances, it is necessary to contemplate the structure and methods for supporting global democracy. While establishing an independent private institution or foundation, such as the U.S. NED, operated by the private sector with independence from the National Assembly or government is one approach, another option could be to establish a body like a Global Democracy Support Center within the Secretariat of the National Assembly, with a narrowly defined scope of activities.

South Korea is currently at a critical juncture where it can share its experiences and provide assistance to other countries undergoing democratization. In a time of global democratic crisis, the South Korean National Assembly needs to recognize its potential as a steadfast supporter of democracy in the international community and act proactively. With the upcoming 2024 Summit for Democracy, now is the opportune moment for the South Korean National Assembly to reflect on and prepare for its role in the process of establishing global democracy. ■

References

Kwon, Hyuk-yong. 2023. “Democratic Backsliding in South Korea.” Korean Political Science Review 57, 1: 33–58.

Kim, Taekyun. 2022. “Implications of South Korea’s Democracy Support Experience as a Global Narrative.” EAI Issue Briefing: 1–14.

Bartels, Larry M., et al. 2023. “The Forum: Global Challenges to Democracy? Perspectives on Democratic Backsliding.” International Studies Review 25, 2.

Graham, Matthew H. and Milan W. Svolik. 2020. “Democracy in America? Partisanship, Polarization, and the Robustness of Support for Democracy in the United States.” American Political Science Review 114, 2: 392–409.

Grumbach, Jacob M. 2023. “Laboratories of Democratic Backsliding.” American Political Science Review 117, 3: 967–84.

Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. 2019. How Democracies Die. Crown.

Orhan, Yunus Emre. 2022. “The Relationship between Affective Polarization and Democratic Backsliding: Comparative Evidence.” Democratization 29, 4: 714–735.

Shin, Gi-Wook. 2020. “South Korea’s Democratic Decay.” Journal of Democracy 31, 3: 100–114.

Svolik, Milan W., Elena Avramovska, Johanna Lutz, and Filip Milaèiæ. 2023. “In Europe, Democracy Erodes from the Right.” Journal of Democracy 34, 1: 5–20.

V-Dem Institute. 2023. Democracy Report 2023.

■ Kang Woo-chang_Professor, Department of Political Science and International Relations, Korea University.

■ Managed and Edited by: Oh Jun-chul_EAI Research Assistant

    Inquiries: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 205) | jcoh@eai.or.kr