Introduction
Electoral systems play a significant role in state politics and the extent to which transparency and democracy are maintained when government officials are elected. The electoral systems of Ecuador, Peru, and South Korea might seem similar. However, their core discrepancies illustrate the difference between democratic and authoritarian governments. Since South Korea’s election framework demonstrates a clear focus on transparency and openness, it contrasts with those of Peru and Ecuador, where election results are affected by inequalities and poor representation of communities.
Ecuador Electoral System
The electoral system of Equator appears to be close to the traditional democratic framework. Being based on the concept of the absolute majority vote, the system requires that the candidate should receive 40% of the total votes or more, which has placed Ecuador at 77 out of 100 on the electoral system assessment (“Ecuador,” 2022). At first glance, the pacified approach to elections aligns with the core standards, yet further analysis will point to the discrepancies associated with the limitations on citizens’ political rights and civil liberties (“Ecuador,” 2022). The observed concerns serve as impediments to democratic and fair elections.
Peru’s Electoral System
By comparison, the election system of Peru, while also scoring quite close to Ecuador, has other issues within its political framework. Specifically, though Peru has reached 77 points on a 100-point scale in the evaluation of its electoral system, it lacks overall fairness and fails to ensure political representation for its minority communities, mainly the LGBT one (“Peru,” 2022). As a result, despite peaceful political transitions, Peru’s electoral system has failed to build confidence and trust in the political system among Peruvians.
South Korea’s Electoral System
Finally, the South Korean electoral system is worth considering as one of the political frameworks that have scored quite low due to the presence of certain discrepancies within it. Specifically, on a scale from 1 to 100, South Korea has reached 83, which is indicative of the moderate quality of its electoral system (“South Korea,” 2022). Furthermore, the analysis of the core dimensions of the subject matter has proven that the extent of political liberties and the levels of alignment with citizens’ civil rights is remarkably great (33 out of 40 and 50 out of 60, correspondingly) (“South Korea,” 2022). The specified characteristics set South Korea apart from Peru and Ecuador, being significantly closer to actual democracy.
However, similarly to Ecuador and Peru, South Korea also has certain flaws in the design of its electoral system, which prevent it from maintaining complete transparency. Specifically, the nature and the course of the election process, as well as its outcomes, have led to the suspicion that both disenfranchisement and instances of election fraud have skewed the election results. Nonetheless, the overall process of the 2020 elections has been deemed fair and transparent (Shim, 2020). Therefore, the electoral system of South Korea stands in sharp opposition to those of Peru and Ecuador, where the presence of political biases and the lack of fairness contribute to poor democracy levels.
Conclusion
Since the electoral systems of Ecuador, Peru, and South Korea are intertwined with their government type, they illustrate crucial differences between democratic and authoritarian regimes. Remarkably, the systems in question score different points in each aspect of their electoral systems’ assessment. Yet, the e general outcome returns out to be quite similar, only South Korea approaching the concept of democracy in its electoral framework. Therefore, an insight into the issue has demonstrated that the process of maintaining democracy hinges upon the electoral system design.
References
Ecuador. (2022). FreedomHouse. Web.
Peru. (2022). FreedomHouse. Web.
Shim, J. (2020). Left is right and right is left? Partisan difference on social welfare and particularistic benefits in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 36(1), 25-41. Web.
South Korea. (2022). FreedomHouse. Web.