정치문화와 집단행동

Political Culture and Collective Action: Applying South Korea’s Democratization Model to Iran’s Green Movement

본 논문에서는 2009년 이란의 녹색 혁명을 둘러싸고 발생했던 사회정치적 사건들의 발생 과정을 내부사례분석과 과정추적방법을 통해 추적하고 이를 1987년 한국의 민주화 과정과 비교한다. 저항운동 참여자들과 정권 사이의 역학 관계를 지배하는 정치적 맥락상의 공통점에도 불구하고 한국의 민주화 운동은 야당 지도자들과 학생 시위자들 사이의 연합 패턴에 있어서 이란의 녹색 혁명과 크게 상이하였다. 한국의 저항 세력은 반정부 연합 세력이 헌법 개정이라는 주제를 둘러싸고 학생 조직들을 포함한 다양한 시민 그룹들을 동원하는 데 있어 성공을 거두게 하는 단일한 정치 문화를 창출해 내었다. 이와는 반대로, 이란의 반정부 세력은 서로 상반되는 저항의 주제와 전술이라는 다면적인 문화를 창출하였으나 파편화되고 구심력을 결핍하였다.

Why did Iran’s Green Movement in 2009 and South Korea’s democratization movement in 1987 led to divergent outcomes? This paper utilizes the within-case study analysis methodology called process-tracing to examine socio-political events that underlied these two movements. The analysis shows that both movements shared several conditions that led to the formation of social and political capital, yet this paper argues that the causal relationships between independent variables revealed two vastly different political cultures. Compared to Iran, South Korea’s political culture was homogenized, although a temporary one, with the New Korea Democratic Party (NKDP)’s successful consolidation of the nation’s various civic groups, including radical student groups, for the purpose of eliciting support from the middle-class. South Korea’s dissident politicians formed a united opposition front and a consolidated protest theme. Therefore, the formation of the NKDP and its electoral alignment with civil-society groups led to a mass mobilization, which was focused and targeted with centripetal momentum. In contrast, Iran’s opposition forces were fragmented and lacked synchronized protest themes. While the Guardian Council’s enormous influence vetted the number of reform-minded candidates, Iran’s political culture witnessed a wide spectrum of differing political ideals and attitudes. Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mohammad Khatami, and Mehdi Karroubi advocated the fundamental principles of the Islamic Republic while many of Iran’s young men and women aimed to bring down the very system of which the Green Movement leaders were a part. In addition, Iran’s constitution is viewed to lack the democratic notions that are understood in the western sense of the political culture framework. In the end, Mousavi was criticized for failing to co-opt the support of civic-society groups in Iran, including ordinary Iranian citizens. Nevertheless, the Green Movement represented Iran’s poly-vocal culture in which a plethora of diverse political ideals and attitudes was embedded and which Iran’s opposition politicians can attempt to accommodate by moderating and splintering their stance.