한국군부의 정치개입과 권력획득에 관한 비교 연구 : 구군부와 신군부 세력을 중심으로 = (A) Comparative Study of the Military Intervention in Politics and Seizure of Power in Korea

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study attempted to probe the transformative process of Korean politics, both the movement of power within the ruling bloc and the paradoxical transformative process of legal reproduction of the military dictatorship, through the understanding and analysis of the military intervention in politics that acted as the most important variable in Korean contemporary political history. By doing so, this study aimed to make a comparative analysis of the factor and nature of the military coup d'etat of both the old military forces and the new military forces in Korean society and to illuminate both the dynamic situation of Korean politics and the structural conflict of the current political regime which has originated from the past.
Though several developmental elements emerged since the first coup d'etat in
the contemporary evolutional process of Korean politics, the military intervention
in politics occurred twice over the period of 20 years. Therefore, this study raised
the following questions as to: what were the internal characteristic of the military
and the politico-social environmental factors that enabled these two coup d'etats to
succeed consecutively; what difference there was between two rounds of the
military intervention in politics; what aspect the mechanism for the take-over of
political power took on; what effect the military seizure of political power had
upon the political regime; and what suggestions the military intervention in
political power gave to the evolutional process of Korean society.
To elicit the answer to these questions, this study sought to make an
investigation into the factors of political intervention found in two rounds of the
military intervention in political power and the form of political power seizure
taken after them based on historical facts using the combination of comparative
analysis and historical methods and the descriptive·evaluative method. Under
this plan, this study analyzed the triggering factors of the military intervention in
political power by dividing them into the internal characteristics of the Korean
military and the politico-social environmental factors. Chapter 3 analyzed the
former by dividing it into factionalism, ideology, institutional benefits, and
professionalism. Chapter 4 analyzed the politico-social environmental variables by
dividing them into such variables as the disruption of the ruling coalition,
inefficient regime, weak civic society, and socio-economic environment. And
chapter 5 analyzed the seizure of political power found in two rounds of the
military intervention in power through the seizure of political community, the
seizure of government agencies, control over the civic community and the role of
the U. S.
As a consequence, the study results were summarized as follows:
First, the internal characteristics of the Korean military that caused the military
to intervene in politics in Korea included such elements as factionalism within the
military, ideology, institutional benefits and new-professionalism, each of which
performed an important role for the Korean military to intervene in politics.
Especially, the factionalism centering around the Faction of Political Soldiers
and Hanahoe and the ruling consciousness of Park Chung-hee and Chun
Doo-hwan, the leaders of the factions acted as the most important factor of the
military intervention in politics. The old military forces formed the faction
through the cause of 'combat against illegality and corruption' within the military.
The new military forces took over political power through the use of the state of
political chaos by forming the friendly and arbitrary faction. Consequently, the old
military forces staged the coup d'etat due to intra-military complaints, whereas the
collective will of the particular faction such as Hanahoe as well as the struggle
for power acted as the great factor rather than intra-military complaints in case of
the coup d'etat staged by the new military forces.
And the element of new-professionalism acted as an important element of the
military intervention in power. The old military forces attempted to intervene in
power under the initiative of the Faction of Political Soldiers centering around
Park Chung-hee taking on a disposition of new-professionalism rather than the
military taking on a disposition of professionalism. But it was found that in case
of the new military forces the political soldiers receiving education on
new-professionalism during Park Chung-hee's regime intervened in political power
taking advantage of the chaotic political situation. Consequently, it was found that
the factionalism of the military offered an organized foundation for the military to
intervene in politics and that new-professionalism offered a theoretical justification
for the military intervention in politics. On the other hand, ideology and
institutional benefits are viewed as less important than the earlier two elements.
The ideology is viewed as acting as the cause for justifying the coup d'etat after
it rather than as the direct factor prompting the military to intervene in politics. It
is seen that the old military forces encroached on institutional benefits in some
cases, but the new military forces increased them during Park Chung-hee's
regime.
In the light of the above discussion, factionalism and new-professionalism are
seen as acting as the necessary condition for the military intervention in politics
while ideology and institutional benefits are viewed as serving as the sufficient
condition for it.
Second, the elements of the politico-social environment in which the Korean
military came to intervene in politics included the disruption of the ruling
coalition, inefficient regime, vulnerable civic community and socio-economic crisis.
Politico-social elements offered an opportunity for the Korean military to intervene
in politics and acted as the factor of the just cause for it. Of the above 4
factors, the disruption of the ruling coalition and inefficient regime, especially,
acted as the more important factors. The military would not have intervened in
politics if the regime had been efficient along with the sound ruling coalition
even though the vulnerable civic community and the socio-economic crisis existed.
Consequently, differences on these politico-social factors can explain that the old
military forces pushed forward with both the seizure of the military and the
seizure of political power by attempting to intervene in politics amid the just
cause for politico-social stability and economic development while the new
military forces were content to seize the military because there was almost
politico-social chaos at the time of the 12·12 Coup d'Etat and then took the '
5·17 Measures' under the pretense of the politico-social commotion occurring
later. These empirical results show that the military adopted the politico-social
factor as the just cause for intervention in politics, which was used to justify
themselves in intervening in politics.
Third, the process of the Korean military seizure political power underwent the
seizure of the political community, the seizure of state agencies and control over
the civic community, in which process the United States played an important role.
The biggest difference in the process of the military intervention in politics is
that the old military forces overturned the civilian government through the coup
d'etat could establish their power according their plan while the new military
forces took over the military power through the 12·12 coup d'etat and then took
over the political power through the 5·17 Revolt. And the old military forces
did not almost meet with resistance from the civic community since the coup
d'etat while the new military forces encountered the great resistance from the
civic community such as the '5·18 Gwangju Mass Resistance'. The resistance
from the civic community such as the 'Gwangju Mass Resistance' continued to
act as the challenge against the legitimacy of political power since the new
military forces seizure of political power.
The United States took the position of the 'bystander' on the Korean military
intervention in politics at first in conjuction with its role and showed the
common tendency to support for it later. But the old military forces intervened in
politics, the United States expressed a clear position of objecting to it and then
returned to the position of supporting for it. Conversely, the United States did
unexpectedly not express their position in a careful and self-possessed manner and
repeated their non-intervention in it when the new military forces intervened in
politics.
This study raised the question as to the fact that existing studies have
overlooked an aspect of comprehensive comparative analysis of Korean political
changes and took special note of this point. The Korean military impaired Korea's
political development and democratization by seizure political power through their
intervention in politics. In other words, Korean political changes under the
military regimes only moved from one form of authoritarianism getting out of the
textbook politics to another form of authoritarianism.
A careful look into the Korean military intervention in politics from a different
aspect reveals that two rounds of the military intervention in politics in Korea
have the double-sidedness of the bright side and the seamy side in Korean
contemporary history. It can be thought that the old military forces have both the
bright side that it was exactly aware of the social objective and what people
wanted, united people together and advanced them toward economic growth and
the seamy side of the infringement on human rights in this process.
On the contrary, the new military forces were confronted with psychological
resistance due to the excessive sense of factionalism exhibited the anti-democratic
behavior that showed only an interest in seizure and maintaining power after
destroying the constitutional order on account of struggle for power. As a
consequence, resistance from the civic community brought about the realization of
the peaceful transfer of power though it might be politically heteronomous.
Therefore, the politico-social environmental factor, the inducement factor, and
the intra-military factor, the triggering factor, will have to be eliminated to
prevent the military intervention in politics that may destroy democracy in the
future.
Especially, what we should overlook is that we should digress from the nature
of the problem and not excessively beautify the history in relation to the situation
since the Korean foreign exchange crisis or politically evaluate and use it without
looking into it from an introductory viewpoint. Then, this also may become
another form of intervention in civilian politics. It would be the behavior running
counter to the principle of democracy, one of inventions by our human beings,
and become the seed that will trigger the loose-principled, sudden and unfortunate
history.