Introduction
The assassination of the South Korean president Park Chug-hee, on 26 October 1979, brought about sudden relief from the authoritarian regime in Korean politics, which eventually led to instability state in the country’s politics. Choi Kyu-hah, the new president who took over power after the assassination was unable to control Chun Doo-Hwan, the army general who eventually seized power and took control of the South Korean government through a coup d’etat on 12th December 1979.
In his rule for 18 years, Park suppressed all movements in the country geared towards the nation’s democratization. After his assassination, these movements started awakening (Robinson, 2007). Before the Kwangju movements for democracy, the historical past of the country was engulfed in dictatorial and authoritative regimes, whose activities were undemocratic.
Thesis statement
The Chun Doo-Hwan government was not justified in the use of force during the Kwangju democratization movements and failed in the restoration of democracy in the country.
The Kwangju democratization movements
University students and professors who suffered expulsion from their universities in activities linked with pro-democracy started returning to universities in early March 1980, at the start of the new semester. The formation of the students’ union ignited countrywide demonstrations calling for reforms, demands on minimum wages to laborers, democratization, and freedom of the press media, and extermination of the martial law, which was declared after the assassination of President Park. These pro-democracy activities culminated in Seoul, the capital city on 15 May 1980, where more than 100,000 students, as well as citizens, staged a demonstration that was against martial law (Robinson, 2007).
From 18 May to 27 May 1980, the town of Kwangju in South Korea experienced an uprising. This uprising was mainly conducted as a strategy to rise against Chun Doo-Hwan’s leadership which was doomed in a military dictatorship. During the uprising, South Korean citizens in the Gwangju city took arms for their self-defense, but eventually, they were trampled by the country’s army (The Kwangju Uprising, n.d).
The Kwangju citizens had a reason to stage a demonstration to fight for their democratic rights, and specifically against the oppressive martial law. Their demonstrations would have been successful if they could avert retaliating the military actions in the demonstration. Their violent engagement with soldiers and the police only worsened the situation, and chances for restoration of democracy were minimized.
Doo-Hwan Chun dictatorship and the Kwangju uprising
In response to the demonstrations against martial law, Chun Doo-Hwan took several measures which were highly authoritarian. For instance, his cabinet stretched out the martial law to the entire country, inclusive of the regions which had not applied to the Jeju-do previously (Lewis, 2002). The expansion of this martial law meant the closure of universities, prohibited all activities which were politically motivated, and further truncated the freedom of the press in the country. This was an undemocratic move taken by the Doo-Hwan leadership, as democracy can not thrive in an authoritative environment. The leader shouldn’t have ordered the closure of universities or the ban of conventions. His dictatorial reinforcement of martial law through army troops was a factor that thinned chances of resolving the issue democratically.
The police raiding on University students ’ union leaders, who had converged for a national conference on May 17, only provoked the students’ quest for their democratic rights. If the government was wise enough, it would have allowed them to rise up their argument, and possibly converge with them to find a solution for the issue (Hwang, 2003). Arresting the student and other veteran politicians such as Kim Dae-Jung, over allegations of inciting and instigating citizens and students to demonstrate, was not a solution to the problem, but an extra problem.
The demonstrations ensued particularly in Kwangju, the capital of the Joellanam-do region, which was the political and economic hotspot of South Korea. The region was well endowed with natural resources, hence since history; it had been the prime target for exploitation from domestic, as well as foreign powers (Robinson, 2007). An opposition culture had therefore been instilled in the region, as characterized by the Kwangju Students Movement, the resistance against Japanese invasions from 1592 to 1598, among other demonstrations.
Park Chung Hee’s tyrannical regime had privileged his native region of Gyeongsang with political and economic favors while undermining the Jeolla region. General Doo-Hwan continued the parasitism, which led to the explosion of the uprising in the city of Gwangju, against the Doo-Hwan dictatorial leadership in May 1980 (Lewis, 2002). The inequality in the distribution of resources is always an unfair practice in a democratic society. The residents of the Jeolla region had a reason to fight for democracy in the share of their resources. Their demonstrations were just as it was their right to enjoy the resources they were endowed with.
Student rebellion and its impacts on democracy
Students’ demonstrations started on May 18, 1980, where students converged at Chonnam National University gate in the insolence of its closure. In opposition, the government sent 30 paratroopers to combat against the students. In the clash, the student engaged the soldier by throwing stones at them. By afternoon, more than 2000 participants were taking part in the rebellion which spread downtown Geumnamno.
Violence was aggravated in the demonstrations when 686 soldiers joined other forces in suppressing the uprising (Robinson, 2007). Students’ demonstrations are justifiable as the government had no concrete reason to close down the learning institutions. The martial law the students were protesting against was indeed oppressive. The government never gave the students as well as its citizens a chance to stage their grievances as to why they were opposed to the controversial martial law. If they had initiated a dialogue to arrive at an affirmative solution regarding the issue, such violence would not have emanated from the demonstration.
Demonstrators, as well as onlookers, were not spared by the soldiers clubbing and use of bayonets. As the conflict heightened, the police started using live bullets on demonstrators, killing quite a huge number of demonstrators (Hwang, 2003). The military misused their power in quelling the demonstrations, by beating even innocent citizens who were not involved in the demonstrations.
The climax of the violence was witnessed on May 21, when protestors raided armories, armed themselves with guns, and engaged the army in gunfights. Afterward, there was a formation of students’ settlement committee which took negotiations with the army in demand for the release of the arrested citizens and disarmament of the militia if the soldiers were to prohibit retaliation. The rebellion culminated on May 27 after troops had defeated the militias (The Kwangju Uprising, n.d). Even though students and civilians had a right to demonstrate, it was unwise for them to raid armories and take arms as this would not only escalate the conflict but also lose their fight for democracy. Despite the student fight for democracy, it was never achieved during the movements, but afterward.
Impacts of the movement in present South Korea
The bloody Kwangju uprising has had a direct impact on present South Korean politics. The democratic election of South Korea’s president Roh Tea-Woo in 1988 brought significant change in the administration. For instance, the relations between the military and civilians have improved greatly. The Roh administration, through a member of the national assembly, declared that it can no longer betray students’ movements as it happened in the 1980s. His administration also supports the anti-military attitude which was used by the former regime and blamed for the violent demonstrations and massacre in Kwangju (Bechtel, 2005, pg 603).
Roh’s emphasis on the civilians controlling the military came out in 2004 during the armed forces day. That was a clear indication that the president was highly involved in democratization reforms based on military power. Before earlier regimes, the Roh administration was in support of the rule of people by themselves, which is the main pillar in a democratic society. For instance through the control of their own military force (Bechtel, 2005, pg 605).
According to Shin (2006), the present Republic of Korea has embarked on a homogeneous nation ethnically. The historical construction of identity has led to positive behavioral consequences among its citizen, which has helped in building unity and promotion of democracy. Reflective regionalism has played a major role in reuniting the nation racially and ethnically. This is a key factor that has helped in the promotion of democracy in the Republic of Korea.
The US ambassador in the Republic of Korea played a great role in encouraging a dialogue between martial law officials and Kwangju citizens in seeking a non-violent end of the democratization conflicts. The ambassador’s endorsement for an official apology concept for warfare misconduct in Kwangju was a great move towards the restoration of democracy in the region and the country as a whole (U.S. Policy & Issues, 1989).
Conclusion
The authoritarian regimes in the past in South Korea denied the citizens their democratic rights through oppressive acts and laws such as martial law. Democratization movements were initiated to fight for these rights but ended up in more oppressions and violent conflicts with the government. Roh’s government tried to restore democracy with help from a foreign agent, but the country has not yet achieved total democracy.
References
Bechtel, B., E. 2005. Civil-Military Relations in the republic of Korea: Background and Implications. Korea Observer. 36(4): 603-630.
Hwang, K., M. 2003. Contentious Kwangju: The May 18 Uprising in Korea’s Past and Present. Lanham, MD.: The Rowan and Littlefield Publishing Group.
Lewis, L. S. 2002. Laying Claim to the Memory of May: a Look Back at the 1980 Kwangju Uprising. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Robinson, M., E. 2007. Korea’s Twentieth-Century Odyssey: A Short History. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Shin, G. W. 2006. Ethnic Nationalism in Korea: genealogy, politics, and legacy. California: The Stanford University Press.
The Kwangju Uprising. (n.d). Web.
United States Government Statement on the Events in Kwangju, Republic of Korea. 1980. Web.