Democratization in The Philippines and South Korea

-97).Perkins argues that the president started far- reaching anti-corruption campaigns which to the public appeared to be genuine, the president introduced some reforms like exposure of assets by high level public officials and he amended the elections and political fund laws. Personally, he explains that the president led the campaign against corruption by declaring that he would not be receiving money as president the way the previous presidents used to. The author believes that Kim Young-Sam’s campaign against corruption reached peak with the arrest and indictment of two former presidents on corruption charges.
Kim Dae-jung’s was the next president after Sam, the new president found public expectations for anti-corruption reforms being very high and similarly, he initiated some reforms that were basically based on transparency of public administration and other organizations and it is during his tenure when a comprehensive anti-corruption law was enacted (Cecil 2008).
Next, and why is the Philippines more corrupt than South Korea Your answer, it has been performing poorly in the Transparency International corruption ranking tables than her neighbour.Well, Mr. Tony (2008) tells us that in the late 1960s the Philippines regime was challenged by rural insurgency and subsequently an urban protest movement. The author reports that the president Ferdinand Marcos, who himself had been elected amid accusations of electoral fraud and corruption declared martial law in 1972, this was in response to these insurgencies and the country was faced with several challenges. Under martial law, he argues that the Philippines was transformed from an elitist democracy into a "constitutional authoritarian" system. "Marcos friends and associates monopolized major industries, and cronyism…
In Korea, the democratization process was more tailored to fight corruption than in the Philippines. We shall see later in the research that, anti-corruption movements in Korea started earlier even during the colonial regimes. in contrast, we shall see how in the Philippines the regime did not embrace serious reforms aimed at fighting corruption. When explaining why Korea is much less corrupt than the Philippines, Mr. Schmidt (2000) considers the part played by the religious group and the civil society. The author explains that democratic reforms and the growth of civil society seem to increasingly play a positive role in curbing corruption in Korea than in the Philippines .He argues that unlike Philippines, in Korea there was unity of religious groups in democratization movement and that the religious leaders in the democratization movement were naturally accepted by the general public as good shelters. Further more, he maintains that even during military dictatorial regimes some religious groups had taken the most important role in human rights movement. During this period Mr. Schmidt asserts that many religious leaders were put into jail and the government of the day was very oppressive. The author argues that it is on the background of this oppression that ironically made unity among various religious groups and with civil society in Korea.
It can be argued that a central factor working in favor of Korean democratization is that the people took direct action in a revolutionary circumstances and forced political reforms, while a persistent source of weakness in the Philippines democracy is the general feeling that it lacks grass roots.