Parallel Paths, Divergent Stories: Taiwan and South Korea’s Democratic Experiment

After a 45-year hiatus, President Yoon Suk-yeol reopened Pandora’s box. South Korea had last invoked martial law in 1979, following President Park Chung-hee’s assassination during a period of significant political instability. The measure remained dormant after the nation’s transition to parliamentary democracy in 1987. However, on December 3, President Yoon reimposed martial law, citing the need to protect South Korea from “pro-North Korea anti-state forces.” This justification echoed previous military coup leaders who had attributed political opposition to North Korean sympathies—claims made without supporting evidence.

A whirlwind of controversy swept through Taiwan recently, as a brief six-hour martial law declaration ignited fierce debates drawing intriguing parallels between the political landscapes of Seoul and Taipei. While these comparisons have merit, they can also be misleading. The two nations share significant historical experiences—Japanese colonization, one-party authoritarian rule, and the struggle for democracy. They also face similar modern challenges: executive-legislative gridlock, high housing costs, youth unemployment, and aging populations with low birth rates. Yet Taiwan and South Korea have developed distinct democratic identities, shaped by their unique political, economic, and cultural contexts. Their parallel journeys, though seemingly similar on the surface, ultimately reveal more contrasts than commonalities. This juxtaposition exposed how Taiwan and South Korea are similar, but unfamiliar.

Anti-authoritarian Sentiments Emerged Differently

The historical legacy of authoritarian rule has profoundly shaped the contemporary political landscapes of both Taiwan and South Korea, manifesting in deeply ingrained anti-authoritarian sentiments within their vibrant, yet sometimes volatile, democratic societies. While Taiwan experienced a longer 38-year period of martial law under the Chiang regime, characterized primarily by civilian authoritarian control, South Korea endured 26 years of successive military dictatorships that sparked unprecedented social upheaval and political resistance. This distinction in the nature of authoritarian rule—civilian versus military—led to different paths of democratic development.

These divergent authoritarian legacies carved distinct paths, each nation navigating its own turbulent journey toward democratization. Taiwan’s democratic transition, while challenging, progressed in a more orderly, institutionalized fashion—the ruling Kuomintang gradually relaxed political controls while preserving administrative stability. South Korea’s path to democracy, however, wound through a labyrinth of political upheaval, marked by intense confrontations between military authorities and civil society. This led to more severe institutional ruptures and a rockier consolidation process. Though both nations now boast professional, apolitical military forces, South Korea’s governance framework bears distinctive imprints of its authoritarian military legacy. The specter of military rule still lingers in today’s political sphere, casting long shadows over its democratic present. These vestiges manifest themselves in the architecture of institutions, the mechanics of policy-making, and the undercurrents of political culture—creating ongoing tensions in civil-military relations and democratic governance.

Constitutional Governance Operates Differently

Both Taiwan and South Korea originated from hybrid systems blending presidential and parliamentary features, with the former leaning more toward a semi-presidential system while the later maintains a presidential one. This distinguishes between each president’s mandated powers, defines when they can exercise executive authority, and outlines their cabinet’s relationship with the legislative branch. In fact, the South Korean presidential system features one of the world’s most powerful executive authorities. The South Korean president wields powers beyond their U.S. counterpart, including the exclusive legitimacy to propose constitutional amendments, initiate public referendums, and introduce bills to the National Assembly. These extensive abilities place the Korean presidency among the strongest in democratic nations, earning it the label of a “strong presidential system,” while Taiwan’s government still divides executive power between its premier and president.

South Korea’s current constitutional framework, however, faces two major structural challenges. The first is presidential overreach—when executive power extends beyond constitutional limits and threatens democratic checks and balances. This has manifested in controversial presidential pardons and unilateral policy decisions that bypass parliament, as clearly demonstrated by former President Park Geun-hye’s abuse of power scandal. The second challenge is severe institutional gridlock, which occurs during “divided government” when the president’s party lacks a parliamentary majority. This paralysis was evident in President Yoon’s term, as the opposition Democratic Party—falling just eight seats short of a two-thirds majority—has effectively blocked nearly all of his key proposals and annual budgets.

These constitutional tensions worsen due to South Korea’s weak party institutionalization, where political parties prioritize short-term gains over long-term governance, lack effective mediation between branches, and maintain a political culture of embracing confrontation over compromise. The single five-year presidential term limit further complicates matters, often turning presidents into “lame ducks” early in their terms and hindering their ability to build lasting coalitions. These systemic weaknesses expose a fundamental flaw in its democratic system, undermining effective governance and political stability.

Economic Structure Underpinned Differently

The economic structures of Taiwan and South Korea have generated distinct sociopolitical outcomes in their democratic institutions. Taiwan’s economy is characterized by a decentralized network of small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which has created relatively equal wealth distribution and a strong middle class. This arrangement has promoted and fostered political stability and institutional balance while limiting the concentration of corporate political power. As a result, economic mobility has strengthened social cohesion and reduced class-based political tensions to some degree.

Conversely, South Korea’s economy is heavily concentrated in its “chaebol” system, with four major conglomerates—Samsung, SK, Hyundai Motor, and LG Groups—accounting for 40.8% of GDP in 2023. This concentration of power, much like putting all eggs in one basket, weakens economic growth and stability while creating deep social and economic divides through troubling ties between business and government. Moreover, the close relationship between political and corporate spheres reinforces executive authority, as the nation’s economic success becomes more reliant on these major conglomerates. Therefore, while Taiwan’s distributed economic model has built-in protections against authoritarian control, concentrated economic structure in South Korea has elevated powerful unofficial groups to dominant positions that can threaten democratic institutions.

Moreover, China’s growing industrial competitiveness against South Korea has exposed how this concentrated economic structure weakens social stability. Public dissatisfaction with socioeconomic inequality has fueled opposition to President Yoon’s martial law policies. Similar issues have emerged in France and Germany, where deep economic ties to China and legislative deadlock have led to government breakdown.

Similar Political Polarization and Democratic Challenges

However, Taiwan and South Korea face parallel challenges that threaten their democratic institutions and national security. These challenges stem from two key areas: domestic division and geopolitical pressures. Both nations face severe political polarization at home, marked by deep ideological rifts and legislative deadlock. This internal discord now overlaps with mounting security threats abroad, as China and North Korea grow increasingly emboldened through their military advancements and their strategic alliance with Russia, further complicating an already precarious security environment. Together, these combined internal and external pressures test the resilience of these two Asian tigers.

In South Korea, a stark divide exists between the ruling party (108 seats) and opposition (192 seats), creating a significant power imbalance. Taiwan’s legislature presents an even more complex scenario with a three-way distribution of power (52-51-8 seats), resulting in a delicate balance that requires careful political maneuvering. These legislative configurations have profound implications for governance, as both nations struggle with passing crucial legislation, face growing partisan gridlock in policy implementation, and experience weakened institutional effectiveness and decision-making capacity. Additionally, there is rising skepticism and declining confidence in democratic processes among the public. The political fragmentation in both countries weakens their democratic stability and hampers their ability to tackle urgent national issues, even when political will and attention are greatly needed.

Lesson For Taiwan?

South Korea’s experience highlights the need of preserving Taiwan’s unique institutional strengths while addressing vulnerabilities through targeted reforms. Taiwan must strengthen its constitutional safeguards by enhancing judicial review and improving coordination between government branches and political parties. The key to the island democracy’s economic miracle lies in its distributed economic model and thriving small and medium enterprise sector — this needs protection to prevent power concentration and maintain democratic stability. Taiwan’s democratic success stems from its sophisticated institutional framework and evolved civil-military relations, requiring ongoing adaptation and dedication to democratic principles. While we must maintain stability in the Taiwan Strait, our democracy cannot remain static.

(Featured photo by Pixabay on Pexels)