Which Was More Democratic in the Same Era: Joseon or Western Europe?
Which Was More Democratic in the Same Era: Joseon or Western Europe?
South Korean Democracy Is No Accident
South Korea is one of the countries that has established democracy at an unprecedented speed in modern history. Just a century ago, this land was under a monarchical system. Despite experiencing military regimes and authoritarian rule, the powerful civic spirit that culminated in the Candlelight Revolution has attracted global attention. This remarkable democratic development cannot simply be attributed to the importation of foreign institutions or political coincidences. Rather, its roots can be traced back to the country’s long historical tradition, particularly the political culture of the Joseon Dynasty.
 |
| "World Democracy Index Map - Wikipedia |
The Era of European Absolute Monarchies — Governance Without Participation
During the 17th and 18th centuries, Europe was dominated by absolute monarchies. Louis XIV of France famously declared, “I am the state,” centralizing legislative, judicial, and executive powers solely in the monarch. Most European countries of the time based their political systems on the divine right of kings, regarding royal authority as sacred and inviolable. Nobles and citizens alike had no real political participation, and even voicing opposition to royal policies was largely impossible. Although parliaments existed, they primarily served to legitimize royal authority institutionally. Freedom of speech and press were severely restricted.
Joseon’s Minben Principle — Limited But Clear Traces of Participation
At the same time, Joseon’s governance was grounded in Confucian Minben (民本) ideology — a principle that places the people as the foundation of the state. While the king held absolute power, that authority was institutionally checked to some degree, and there was a strong expectation of political morality and accountability to the people.
A particularly notable feature was the Annals of the Joseon Dynasty (Joseon Wangjo Sillok), a meticulous state record system. The king was monitored daily by historians whose records were compiled independently, making it impossible for the monarch to expel historians or control what was documented. Conscious of how their words and actions would be recorded for posterity, kings had to govern with awareness of transparency. This system resembles modern concepts of administrative transparency and democratic record-keeping.
Moreover, Joseon implemented the Sinmung-go system, which allowed common people to strike a drum outside the palace to directly petition the king. This institution, revived during King Yeongjo’s reign, was an unprecedented channel for popular grievances in a period when such opportunities were virtually nonexistent in Europe. It can be regarded as a traditional antecedent to today’s petition systems.
Additionally, institutions like the Sahyeonbu and Saganwon served as watchdogs, providing direct advice to the king and guarding open communication channels. Although their ability to freely express opinions was sometimes limited by factional politics and repression, their very existence planted seeds of institutional checks on power.
Relative Openness Revealed Through Comparison
It would be an overstatement to define Joseon as a fully democratic state. Yet, compared with contemporary European absolute monarchies, Joseon exhibited a more complex structure of power checks and political responsibility toward the populace. Unlike Europe, where a single monarch monopolized political, religious, and intellectual spheres, Joseon’s political culture incorporated institutional efforts to limit power, collect popular opinions, and monitor governance through transparent record-keeping.
The following table compares the Joseon Dynasty with representative continental European absolute monarchies of the 17th and 18th centuries. The purpose is to illustrate that even a non-Western state like Joseon had institutionalized attempts at political participation and power checks.
| Aspect | Joseon Dynasty | European Absolute Monarchies (Separate evaluation for 17th-century England) |
|---|---|---|
| Governance Philosophy | Confucian Minben ideology emphasizing people as the state’s foundation | Divine Right of Kings, where monarch’s authority derives from God |
| Channels for Popular Voice | Appeals system (for officials), Sinmung-go (for commoners) — formal, though limited, outlets for opinion expression | Political participation by common people was extremely limited; power centered among nobles and clergy |
| Power Checks | Institutions like Sahyeonbu, Saganwon, and Hongmungwan monitored authority; historians recorded royal conduct independently | Concentrated royal power; limited checks by nobles or parliaments in some states, but practically minimal |
| Record-Keeping and Transparency | Meticulous and consistent historical records (Joseon Wangjo Sillok), compiled independently from political power | Chronicles tended to glorify monarchs, with documentation often serving political legitimization |
| Official Appointment | Merit-based civil service exam system (Gwageo); although dominated by yangban class, social mobility was institutionally possible | Nobility-based, hereditary appointments dominated official positions |
This comparison is not intended to claim that Joseon was “more democratic” than Europe, but rather to highlight that Joseon had institutionalized mechanisms for political participation and checks on power. In reality, the effectiveness of appeal systems and watchdog institutions varied depending on the era and monarch’s disposition, and popular political participation remained limited.
Likewise, European absolute monarchies varied significantly by country. England, in particular, is recognized as an exception due to its early establishment of constitutional monarchy. This table focuses on the continental monarchies such as France, Spain, and Austria.
South Korean Democracy Blossomed on a Historical Foundation
Since the establishment of the Republic of Korea in 1948, democracy was introduced institutionally but was not fully realized in practice for a long time. However, direct civic actions such as the June Democratic Uprising in 1987 demonstrated the power to rapidly align political systems with popular will. This transformation is better understood not as merely influenced by foreign powers, but as the expression of a deep-rooted Korean political culture that values “power subject to oversight and popular will reflected in governance.”
While Joseon’s political system cannot be called fully democratic, it embodied elements of checks and balances, record transparency, and reflection of popular opinion. These traditions persisted as intangible assets within the consciousness of Korean citizens, ultimately enabling South Korea’s rapid democratic development, which is recognized worldwide.
Conclusion
Democracy cannot be transplanted merely as a set of institutions. It is a culture, a memory, and a political tradition. The Joseon Dynasty’s governance contained the seeds of democratic elements. Although it would be inaccurate to declare Joseon more democratic than Europe, it nevertheless featured institutionalized mechanisms for popular opinion gathering, power checks, and transparent administration—features uncommon in many contemporary European states. South Korea’s rapid democratic consolidation was possible because it was rooted in this historical soil. South Korean democracy is no accident.
by pre2w
View the original Korean text
Comments
Post a Comment