2012, Vol., No.34

Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.39

pISSN : 1598-4230 / eISSN : 2586-7601
https://journal.kci.go.kr/ihss

This research paper forms a preliminary study addressing how best to approach unification education in order to peacefully manage South Korean society’s internal conflicts related to inter-Korean issues and to allow a more united future of Korea to develop. In other words, in the context of internal conflicts within South Korean society, this research paper diagnoses the current status of unification education, including whether concerted contents of this can be made, which party should be responsible for it, and what is the most effective method of its implementation. This paper argues that strengthening democratic communication ability is the most important aspect of peaceful conflict management in South Korean society, and examines the possibility of combining communication education with unification education. In addition, this paper proposes several suggestions as to the direction of unification education in civil society: first, and most crucially, the neutral media’s role in unification education, second, utilization of various texts in society as well as materials developed by the Ministry of Unification or the Education Center for Unification. This paper also argues that in unification education a facilitator’s role is to lead discussion and thinking on the issue, which can be more effective than a lecturer’s one-way communicative mode. This paper also emphasizes that unification education has to be approached within an extensive “civic education” program, and at the same time, the materialization of the united future of Korea has to be based on a win-win approach and a perspective focusing on co-prosperity, which can be formed by communication education that addresses conversation and negotiation. That is, within the goal of expanding civil society’s democratic mindset, this paper points out that the direction for unification education lies in providing opportunity to think about division and unification issues within Korea.

The reunification of the two German states whose people previously had belonged to one state and where a sense of common national identity had been cherished was the product of an unusual experiment in statecraft. The parallel existence of two German states with extremely different political and economic systems for almost half a century has led to the development of different family models, value systems, ways of spending free time and work ethos - to give only a few examples. Reunification brought about the transfer of the political system, institutions and business management rules from the west to the east. However, the contact of the two societies in many cases resulted in culture shock. Different political sentiments have developed in eastern and western Germany. This article is intended to examine the problem of cultural and social differences between the two societies from a political perspective. One of the most evident differences between the people of the two German societies is present in the perception of 'justice.' The two German societies define 'justice' differently and as a result have different views regarding the political system and institutions. This primarily concerns mindsets: Germans from both parts of the country still do not see themselves as one nation, which is manifested through mutual stereotypes and differences in behaviour. The dissonance between the political and the social realities impedes the formation of a pan-German identity. From the present point of view, it is the social divides which seem to be the greatest challenge in the context of a total reunification of Germany. The knitting together of the two societies until they grow into one body will require a open-mindness, great effort and great sensitivity from both eastern and western Germans.

The majority of voters are not accredited political parties. This is crisis of modern democracy. When questioning the cause of this crisis, two reasons can be presented. One stems from electorate change and the other is related to an inadequate party system. The first of these is the result of the electorate having been changed by economic growth, social structural change, the growth of cognitive abilities, communal heterogeneity and the development of post materialism. The distance between the electorate and parties has been widened and psychological identification from the former with the latter has been accordingly weakened. Considering the second of these reasons, the two party system cannot be argued to cover the diversities of modern society. These two reasons have interacted retrogressively. In 1993, New Zealanders voted in a referendum to change their voting system from the traditional first-past-the-post (FPP) method to Mixed Member Proportional representation (MMP). The origins of this electoral reform lay in a gradual breakdown of public trust and low confidence in politicians, Parliament, and the simple certainties of the old two-party system. MMP was introduced in New Zealand in 1996 to bring proportionality to the electoral system through the adoption of a ‘mixed member’ system in which the ‘party vote’ would determine the overall number of seats a party could hold in Parliament, and the ‘electorate vote’ would elect the local MP. This mixed member system was designed to reflect the best aspects of the two systems involved. MMP should be introduced to give social minority groups more representation in us parliament as is the case in NZ.