㉢ The Interaction of the Two Types of Political Regimes

㉢ The Interaction of the Two Types of Political Regimes

 

The two types of political regimes can both be synergistic and conflicting with each other at times. Let us examine each of these two aspects.

 

 

Synergistic Interaction

 

Initially, the types of political regimes interact synergistically with each other. All individuals and groups are different and concrete, yet "any social order implies a large measure of standardisation, and therefore of abstraction." This is the law, and this is why the rule of law becomes flexible^[Ch.2.6c]. This flexibility can also mean a gap in the rule system, and one example that demonstrates this is that after the American Civil War, the 15th Amendment of the Constitution prohibited the denial of voting rights based on race, but the South whites could not regulate the effective denial of the election rights of blacks through conditions such as 'indusiveness,' property ownership, or "literacy." The human relations regime is what stabilizes this flexibility according to the situation or fills the gap. Therefore, when the two types of political regimes interact synergistically, the human relations regime operates mainly in the micro-level while the legal regime operates in the macro-level.

 

Human relations regimes are often considered as unjust. There are many examples of unfavorable human relations regimes, such as the case of Edward V's mother, Elizabeth Woodville, being supplanted by her relatives during Edward's brief reign in 1483 at the age of 12, or the case of the former South Korean President Park Geun-hye's administration being destabilized by her confidant, Choi Soon-sil, in 2016, or the case of Cho Kuk, who was implicated in a scandal regarding his daughter's academic background in 2017, but still appointed as a presidential secretary due to his relationship with President Moon Jae-in. However, due to the abstractness of legal provisions, human relations regimes cannot be completely replaced by legal regimes. For example, it is practically impossible to regulate the political behavior of people in the Indonesian Javanese cultural area, who are influenced by three distinct cultural types, abangan, santri, and priyay, by legal provisions. Furthermore, well-utilized human relations regimes are often more superior than legal regimes. A good example is the British government's resolution of the political issues in Canada after the suppression of the French-Canadian revolt in 1837. At that time, the British government maintained the authority to appoint the Canadian government's ministers, but actually appointed them only from among those who received the mandate of the Canadian parliament. As a result, the revolution in colonial Canada was achieved without any disturbance.

 

The abstract nature of the legal regime is most evident in the personnel sector. No law can specifically determine all individuals in each position, but instead all laws regulate personnel rights to the appropriate position. In essence, this demands the formation of a partial human relations regime. Therefore, the triad of the Park Geun-hye regime, the Moon Jae-in regime's Im Jong-seok and Cho Kuk system, or in and of themselves, are not necessarily wrong.

 

 

The Conflicting Interaction

 

On the other hand, coexisting political regimes in reality may also conflict with each other. In May 2000, Vladimir Putin became the President of Russia and performed the presidency until May 2008 through a constitutional four-year extension, the highest limit in the constitution. Then, from 2008 to 2012, Medvedev served as president before Putin was re-elected in 2012. However, many experts believed that Putin was still the most influential person in Russia and the "national leader" even during the period when he was not president from 2008 to 2012. In the early Joseon Dynasty, Taejong of Joseon transferred power to his son, Crown Prince Chungnyeong, on a constitutional level, but still exerted his influence in human relations (and in practical terms) in the military and all major areas. Therefore, Sejong had to answer mostly "I will ask Father His Majesty." for most issues. Both cases are examples of situations where the human relations regime conflicts with the constitutional regime.

 

When the human relations regime and the legal regime conflict, the human relations regime will take precedence in the short-term or micro-level areas, while the legal regime will ultimately have an impact in the long-term or macro-level areas. As a short-term example, one can find the case where the human relations regime takes precedence over the legal regime in the reality of the Southern United States' slave system during the 19th century. Despite the brutal slave laws, which prohibited whites from teaching slaves to read or write, the situation varied greatly depending on the slave owner's personal relationship with the slaves. Slaves were sometimes allowed to own property and to learn how to read and write, and to hold gatherings with other slaves.

 

Conversely, in the macro-level and long-term context, the legal regime functions more effectively than the human relations regime. The power regime based on the human relationships of Park Geun-hye and Choi Soon-sil was in conflict with the South Korean legal system and eventually, with the passage of time, the legal system overcame the conflicting human relations regime. Those involved were punished. This effect of the legal system, also referred to as the "rule of law," can be described as macro-level and long-term governance efficiency. As a result, it is possible to have a keen insight into the "governance strategic calculation" that encourages other important powers with capacity to cooperate rather than rebel.

 

Therefore, as the political regime (according to the normal process of political development) becomes more stable, the proportion of the legal regime increases and the proportion of the written law regime increases as the size of the political organization (the number of members) increases. Similarly, King Henry II and King Richard of medieval England extorted money from the people under various tax names, but the people only strongly resisted John, leading to the signing of the Magna Carta. This was because John showed a more selfish domination and a doubtful character and a volatile cruelty, unlike Henry II or Richard, which shows that political instability led to the rule of written law.

 

Therefore, how does the scope of political activity regulated by the legal regime differ from that regulated by the human relations regime? Is the influence of any political regime type always consistent? The answer is no. The influence of each political regime type varies based on two factors: the difference in the capacity of politicians and the recent political stability. That is, the more the difference in the capacity of politicians is, and the more the political capacity of a minority of politicians is relatively large, the greater the influence of the human relations regime will be. Additionally, the shorter the recent political stability period, the greater the influence of the human relations regime will be. The reason why the human relations regime centered around Emperor Taejong was strong after the royal succession in the early Joseon dynasty was because the political capacity of Taejong's confidants, who went through the prince's crisis, was particularly strong, and also because the political stability in the early Joseon era was short.