The Comparative Studies On South Korean And Russian Political Elites Since Transition

South Korea and Russia are typical representatives among the contemporary political-transition countries. So far, Macro-research and case studies on these two transition countries have been of considerable scale and depth. However, it is rare to view this issue from the perspective of comparative study and micro-research. Such as, in the more than a decade political transition process, the political elite play exactly what kind of role at different stages of their countries' transition; with the advance of the transition, what kind of differentiation happened among the political elites; what kind of causal relations between the strategic choice of the political elite, and the tracks and the direction of the democratic evolution, and so on. The issues above aroused my interests. I tried to study the political elites preliminarily from micro-perspective.In this dissertation, the comparative studies on political elites in South Korea and Russia have been sectioned into five chapters:Chapter I summarizes the theory of traditional elite and its evolution, analyzes the concept and classification of elite, and the source of political elite's power, focuses on the relevance of the elite and political transition, and then draws conclusions from it: elite governance is a common phenomenon in human society, even in highly developed system of democratic politics. The operation of power is merely seized by few elites. Elite governance is necessary in the modern society, in which the organized and fined division is increasing; especially the risk and instability of transition countries endue the authoritative politics with greater legitimacy. People who live in the transition countries hope that the capable political elite can lead a successful transition. Therefore, the existence of authority and elite has its considerably suitable society soil in transition countries.Chapter II analyzes the structure changes of the elite in South Korea and Russia after their countries before and after transforming to democratization respectively by the comparative method. Specifically, it analyzes the age, birthplace, educational level, occupational structure of the elites who lived in the period of the Third Republic of Korea to the Seventh Republic of Korea (from the 1960s to the 1990s). We can grasp the evolutionary trajectory of democratization in South Korea by researching the characteristics of political elite transition during the transition of their own country. Comparatively, although the Russia's political transition is radical, but in the aspects of the role conversion and structural changes of the political elite before and after the transition, we can know that the old political legacy of authoritarianism in Russia affected the path of democratic transition. The selection of the elite and the effect of the elite during the democratic transition of their own country have also been comparativly analyzed.Chapter III discusses the political elites by the theoryof democratic consolidation path---Elite Compromise andNon-elite Compromise, by an American scholar named John Higley. Since 1993, South Korea had entered the democratic consolidation stage ruled by civilian president, from the point of view of performance of South Korean political elites during this period, the ruling elite (mainly refers to the rulers, such as President) and the power elite (such as the Members of Congress, the top officials of the Government and the Judiciary) have reached a compromise on the transition path and the way of power substitution , and have achieved a certain degree of consensus, so that the political transition of South Korea evolved toward the direction of the democracy consolidation firmly. This chapter focuses on the structure, characteristics and political tendencies of the the 15th Congress (1996-2000) members of South Korea, and at the same time analyzes the political thought of theformer ruling elites since 1993 in South Korea, and then draws a conclusion that the political elite in South Korea play a key role during the period of democracy consolidation.Chapter IV studies the Russian elite and the the road to Russia-style democracy since the transition specially. First of all, it analyzes the political orientation of the power elite in Yeltsin-and-Putin's Time, including mainly the elite's opinion on political participation, leadership and competition among political parties, as well as the attitudes toward president, government power and democracy, etc. Secondly, it analyzes the reasons for the changes of the elite's values since the country transition. Overall, the reasons for the democratic values evolution of the Russian elite are the interaction of multiple factors, such as the elite's characteristics and background, the influence of Russian traditional political culture, the condition of the domestic economy and social environment, and so on. Thirdly, it comments the selection of the Russian political elite and Russia-style democracy. The political elite in Russia made a general consensus on the democratic mode controlled by the strong leadership. It laid a broad foundation of legitimacy for the authority of the Russia-style democracy.Chapter V mainly explains the change of diplomacy about two countries from the perspective of elite since transition. First, the paper analyzed the elite factors in diplomatic decision-making from the theoretical level. The second is to focus on the role of political elites in Ruasia and South Korea foreign relations, including the elite's diplomatic thinking and the changes in foreign relations, the perception of external world and decision-making level of Elites, and the interaction beteen Internal political and economic transformation and external relations.Chapter VI, the analysis is mainly on the homogeneity and heterogeneity concerning the political transition between South Korea and Russia. Based on the soil of society in which democracy grew, both South Korea and Russia are eastern countries, which were lack of democratic tradition, and were affected by the outside world, as well as the internal democratic pressures and traditional culture. From the point of view of results and objectives, the transition of these two countries shows homogeneity. But from the side of the underlying causes, pattern and specific path, there are obvious differences. In the aspect of transition pattern, it reflected the contrasts between gradual-evolution democracy and the radical overthrow-regime transformation. In the aspect of transition conditions, it reflected the contrasts of economy comparatively developed and on the verge of collapse. In the aspect of transition base, it reflected the contrasts between maturity of the middle class and lack of civil society. In the aspect of transition path, it reflected the contrasts of the deliberative democracy and the elite-dominated democracy.