Korean Citizens’ Movement Organizations: Their Ideologies, Resources, and Action Repertoires

by Cho Dae-Yop - Korea Journal

The most interesting thing in the article to me was this on page 8 of the pdf document:

In contrast, the major citizens’ movement organizations mobilized individuals who did not share a particular common base as they campaigned around a specific issue or channeling their participation through a particular organization. This type of mobilization involved not direct activity in itself, but rather indirect participation, namely through the collection of membership dues. Campaigns by specialized full-time activists could be programmed and executed through the mobilization of such funds (McCarthy and Zald 1977).

This is at the start of one of the later sections of the paper that covers what it terms "market mobilization" - meaning the gathering and distribution of funds as the "primary" means of activism for these groups --- how they get their power.

The major citizens’ movement organizations, unlike those of the democratization movement, featured market-oriented organizations because they placed priority on the mobilization of financial resources, which consisted mainly of membership fees and contributions, apart from the mobilization of human resources.

The title of this section is simply: "Market Mobilization" and starts on page 8 of the pdf file.

I tried to find the article I read last year that said the Korea Teachers' Union was the richest. That was highly suprising to me, and since then I have been curious about the funding and war chests of these groups.


The last section of the paper I read in full notes the use of the Korean media to promote their views:

According to a survey of 52 citizens’ movement organizations, they utilized the mass media 77.4 times a month on average (Lim and Kong 1997). Utilization of press constitutes the most important mode of activities in terms of politics of influence. Citizens’ movement organizations also stressed open discussion meetings, protest rallies and demonstrations, statement issuances, and signature campaigns. In addition, they published their own newspapers and magazines for publicity purposes and ran educational programs for active members. Of these, discussion meetings, statement issuances, and rallies and demonstrations, along with the utilization of the mass media, constituted a strategy of influence that called for the attention of the public sphere (Kim Ho-Ki, 2000).

I've noted recently how these groups have had a much harder time using this avenue since roughly the summer of 2003 ---- fear of losing USFK and major loss of connection (and influence) via the US-SK Alliance ---- has made the major media outlets pour cold water on the regular anti-US groups (and militant labor) rather than giving them a platform to propagate their views.

Anyway...

Now, notes from the start of the article:


The Article Abstract:

Differing from the 1980s social movement and led by radical ideologies, the major citizens’ movement organizations, despite some ideological differences, displayed a new trend that could have been categorized as liberalism.

One of the most noticeable social phenomena in Korea since the 1990s has been the expansion of citizens’ movement organizations. In 1999, Korea had about 4,023 citizens’ movement organizations with some 20,000 branches. In 2003, the figures soared to approximately 7,400 and 25,000, respectively (NGO Times 2003).

In the course of the 1980s democratization movement, the social movement was perceived to be a radical resistance
movement based on the minjung ideology that pursued liberation of the oppressed and the deprived, workers, the urban poor, and peasants.

In particular, citizens’ movement organizations pursued an “influence strategy” to change the authoritarian political structure that had been maintained by the old political power; the substantial context of this strategy was a continuation of a “resistance strategy.”

I would think you could also argue that some of these groups, those that remained radical, wanted to do more than just reform the last areas of authoritarian rule. I think you could argue they in fact wanted to more simply shift who was in control of the authoritarian rule --- replacing the conservative anti-communist elites with leftist elites who would then reshape the politics and social system to match their ideology ---- with both of these authoritarian-minded core leaders believing what they were doing - the reshaping of society - was for the "good of the masses."

Perhaps....???

The Article


I don't think the author would agree with me - given this next part

In this respect, the ideologies of Korean citizens’ movement organizations until recently were inclined in general toward a liberalism adapted to the system on the one hand, and showed a trend of “adaptive divergence” to the system with some strategic variance within a liberal orientation on the other.

One question: Just how "democratized" do some of the leaders of these NGOs believe South Korea has become? Are there still some who believe "real democracy" has not arrived and it will take "major reformation" to achieve it? ---I'm thinking of those who are very much against capitalism, globalization, and preach "self-reliance"...

From the outset, the Citizens’ Coalition for Economic Justice
(CCEJ) distinguished itself from the mass-oriented radical democratization movement of the 1980s. The CCEJ defined its main subjects as citizens irrespective of socio-economic class in its mission statement: “The forces we intend to rally are not confined to the alienated and suppressed people. . . . Citizens, be they businessmen or the middle class, are important constituents of our movement” (CCEJ 1989b). Inits foundation, the CCEJ described the objective of its movement as the attainment of a “democratic welfare society in which the defects of the market economy are corrected. . . through an appropriate intervention of a clean and competent government, while fostering the efficiency and dynamics of the market economy (CCEJ 1989a).

That's interesting...The next part is more so:

Its 2002 revised rules redefined the objective as “contributing toward building the framework of democratic welfare society by waging a peaceful citizens’ movement aimed at the realization of economic and social justice” (CCEJ 2006).

The author notes the acceptance of a market economy foundation in the 1980s, but doesn't he show with this 2002 edit that reference to the market economy was dropped - dropped for a new emphasis on things that sound like they come from groups not found of globalization and world markets?

Maybe that is just my bias. The hairs on the back of my neck tend to stand up any time I hear "people's blah blah" or "citizens' movement" --- they causes echos of not so hot times of the past in the nations who tried the communist experiment.

I have next to no background in this area - so I can only offer questions...

Korea Anti-Pollution Movement Association (KAPMA), the predecessor to the KFEM which was established in 1993, displayed a strong leftist environmentalism. Attributing the environmental crisis to “monopolistic jaebeol desperate to make money, the military dictatorship protecting them, and the domineering United States, which has turned the Korean peninsula into a colonial dumping yard,” KAPMA presented as an alternative a “genuine democratic society in which social inequality and alienation from nature can be overcome,” as well as a “democratic society in which the minjung is the masters”

With citizens’ movement organizations taking part as major partners in the recently expanded government-initiated governance programs, their ideological leanings tended towards further standardization in the direction of accommodation to the system.

I'm going to chose to read this for the time being as something along the lines of: "Once Roh Mun-Hyun became president, and they had on of their own in the heart of power, they were brought into the government and steadily set about changing things, though they faced stiff opposition from conservatives (and popular opinion polls)."

The major citizens’ movement organizations handled such a wide a variety of issues that they were dubbed “comprehensive” or “department store-like” entities.

I don't know about these groups, but I know the anti-US groups have names that sound like they target specific issues, but it is always the same people at the same type protests - protesting anything remotely close to connected with the US in Korea...


Later, he gives us some details about the broad outlook of NGO participation:

According to the Hanguk min-gan danche chongnam (Directory of Korean NGOs), published in 2000, organizations in the civil and social sector had an average of 8,130 members, 7.17 full-time staff members and 5.91 executive board members (NGO Times 2000).

Below is an image of a handy-dandy table he has - click to enlarge:



He has a handy table for the CCEJ's activities:

Table 2. CCEJ’s Activities by Area (1989-2001)
Politics-Corruption - Econ- Environ- Urban Aff. - Diplomacy - Soc. - Unifi-
492 - 99 - 651 - 219 - 120 - 103 - 314 - 106
% (24.6) (4.9) (32.5) (10.9) (6.0) (5.1) (15.7) (5.3)


He goes on to say good things about the democracy advocacy in the courts (and elsewhere) by the The Peoples Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD).





It all sounded rather rosy - until I got to the part where I had at least a little background understanding...

This indicates that the citizens’ movement (PSPD), the progressive party (Democratic Labor Party), and the labor circle (Korea Confederation of Trade Unions) all began to produce a certain degree of accord in terms of actual political reform and the reform of family-centered business conglomerates, as well as the creation of social welfare programs and guaranteeing the masses’ right to survival.

Okie-Dokie.



I got ya now...



If you look around the videos on this index page - which mostly has videos from 2002-2003, you will see my good friend right here on the right. He was the socialist/communist party presidential candidate.

He was the lead speaker at one of the finest moments in US-SK relations - which you can watch here. It was his thing to have middle and high school students mass to protest outside the USFK base whose armored vehicle accidently ran over two middle school girls.

He would be the big guest speaker, but they went through a lot of trouble to give the young people their chance ---- to vent vile spleen...

Civic duty and all, you know....





These are the largest, highly pro-North, anti-US civic groups with the militant KCTU being the shock troops - along with Hanchongryon



(the blind leftist university student group)...

Any of the violent videos you watch off my www.usinkorea.org site will consist of either Hanchongryon or militant labor and often both. Hanchongryon has also done smaller violent tactics like scaling the US Embassy walls, cut through base fence lines and clashing with US MPs, and the storming of the highrise office of the American Chamber of Commerce in Seoul.

So, they worked hand-in-glove with the PSPD....


Gotcha. No further explanation needed.....I see where we are at with our talk of "people's democracy" and "citizens".

In this respect, the PSPD, it can be said, has continually pushed ahead with the unfinished tasks of the democratization movement in a far more positive way than other groups.

I guess that is one way to look at it........

The Korean Federation for Environmental Movement (KFEM), as specialized as it seems in environmental issues, is actually characterized by its positive involvement in a wide range of issues.

Translation: just another front group for the core leadership in all these groups whose goal is to move toward North Korea's version of "People's Democracy" and away from the evil Uncle Sam...




I could be being unfair to these groups, because I don't know much about them, but if they are in bed with the DLP - it isn't hard to guess...

The most noticeable aspect of the KFEM’s activity was that it, in solidarity with other groups, actively engaged itself in non-environmental, political issues. It participated in campaigns to introduce a special prosecutor system and enact an anti-corruption act. It also played an active part in supporting solidarity activities with other civil organizations for democratic reform...

Makes perfect sense....

Korea’s major citizens’ movement organizations, by handling
comprehensive campaign issues, were better able to deal with the various concerns of citizens.

Which explains why President Roh had overwhelming popular support for himself and the minions he peopled the executive branch with - and why Uri party won landslide elections year after year.

[Note for those totally unfamiliar with South Korean society --- that above paragraph is exactly opposite of what public opinion showed]





Here is how he described why these groups keep taking up this and that and every possible issue as a political tool:

The large scale aggrandizement and restricted specialization of these organizations indicate that they played the role of representing citizens’ demands and making them political agenda, rather than “expressing” these demands themselves. In this respect, they functioned as “representative agencies” for the citizens (Cho H. 1999).

How noble of them...