By Alan Cooperman and James Bell

Pakistanis will go to the polls Saturday in parliamentary elections that mark the first democratic transition from one elected civilian government to another in their country’s 66-year history. But support for democracy is thin in Pakistan, according to a Pew Research Center survey of Muslims around the world. By a nearly two-to-one margin (56% to 29%), Pakistani Muslims say they would prefer “a leader with a strong hand” over “a democratic form of government” to solve their country’s problems. This is among the lowest levels of support for democracy in the 37 countries and territories where the question was asked, as the chart on the right shows and a new Pew Research infographic illustrates.

In addition, most of Pakistan’s Muslims doubt that they can have any real political influence. Two-thirds of Pakistani Muslims either completely agree (53%) or mostly agree (13%) with the statement that “people like me don’t have any say about what the government does.” Just 25% disagree, either completely (20%) or mostly (5%).

The Pew Research survey of Pakistani Muslims (who make up 96% of the country’s population, according to a December 2012 Pew Research demographic study) was conducted in November 2011, well before the current election campaign. A more recent Pew Research poll, conducted in March of this year, shows that most Pakistanis think the country is headed in the wrong direction, and 83% give an unfavorable rating to the incumbent President Asif Ali Zardari of the Pakistan People’s Party.

More than a half dozen political parties are vying for seats in parliament, including some opposition parties that formally identify as religious or Islamic. In the survey of Muslims around the world, respondents were asked to compare Islamic political parties with other parties. A plurality of Pakistan’s Muslims say Islamic parties are about the same as other parties (39%). Just 10% say Islamic parties are worse, while 29% see Islamic parties as better than other parties.

More broadly, many of Pakistan’s Muslims think that religious leaders should have a role in politics. About half say that religious leaders should have either “some influence” (27%) or a “large influence” (27%) in political matters, while about a quarter say religious leaders should have “not too much influence” (12%) or “no influence at all” (14%).

Alan Cooperman is the associate director of research for the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life, and James Bell is the Pew Research Center’s director of international survey research.

When 91% of the public thinks the country is on the wrong track, it’s usually a good sign for the opposition’s electoral hopes, and as Pakistan prepares for parliamentary elections on May 11, supporters of two major opposition parties are feeling optimistic. Moreover, as a new Pew Research Center poll highlights, the leaders of those two parties are getting positive reviews from the public.

Two-in-three Pakistanis have a favorable opinion of Nawaz Sharif, a former prime minister and leader of the largest opposition party, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N). Sharif is especially popular in Punjab, the country’s most populous province. His ratings have been consistently positive over the last few years, and many observers believe the elections will sweep his party back into power.

However, the wild card of the election may be Imran Khan from the upstart Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party (PTI) . The former cricket star – in 1992, he led Pakistan to its only World Cup championship in the sport – has shaken up Pakistani politics in recent years, with massive rallies and a message that appeals to many who have grown frustrated with the status quo in a country plagued by violence, corruption, and a poor economy.

And Khan hasn’t shied away from anti-American rhetoric, which could be a political winner in a nation where only 11% have a favorable opinion of the United States. At a rally last weekend, Khan said all Pakistani politicians are “slaves” of the U.S. and that he would shoot down American drones if they entered Pakistani airspace.

Six-in-ten Pakistanis express a positive opinion of the PTI leader, down slightly from 70% a year ago. But Khan’s biggest challenge may be converting his personal popularity into votes. His party, which in previous elections has been able to claim only one seat in parliament, doesn’t have the geographic base, party machine, or longstanding patronage networks that the two leading parties – the PML-N and Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) – have developed over the years, so it’s unclear how many seats the PTI will be able to win.

Meanwhile, ratings are abysmal for incumbent President Asif Ali Zardari from the PPP, which had a majority in the most recent parliament.  Only 14% give him favorable marks. Views of Zardari have turned sharply negative since he took office in 2008, only months after the assassination of his wife, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.  Then, 64% saw him in a positive light.

Zardari’s ratings may be low, but his party can take credit for presiding over a significant achievement: making it through a full term in office. No matter who wins this weekend’s elections, it will be the first time in Pakistan’s history – a history checkered by several military coups – that a democratically-elected parliament will be followed by another democratically-elected parliament.

Richard Wike is associate director of the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project. Follow him on Twitter @RichardWike.

As Malaysians head to the polls this Sunday in what the BBC calls the nation’s “most hotly contested general election,” most report feeling satisfied with the direction of their country.

The Barisan Nasional (National Front) coalition, along with its predecessor the Alliance Party, has been Malaysia’s dominant political force since independence in 1957. But BN’s hold slipped in the 2008 election — the 140 seats out of 222 it won marked the coalition’s worst performance in decades. And the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat (People’s Alliance), led by former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim , is pressing hard to finally gain power at the national level.

Malaysia’s estimated 13 million voters will elect members of the federal Parliament and 12 of Malaysia’s 13 state legislative assemblies.

In a survey conducted in March for a forthcoming Pew Research Center report, 82% of Malaysians said they were satisfied with the way things were going in the country, up from 76% in 2007. A similar percentage, 85%, called Malaysia’s economic situation good, up from 76% in 2007.

Malaysia’s economy remains strong. Real GDP grew by 5.6% last year, according to the current World Economic Outlook report (pdf) from the International Monetary Fund; the IMF expects Malaysia’s economy to grow 5.1% this year and 5.2% in 2014.

But consumer prices are growing as well. After rising 1.7% in 2012, the IMF expects inflation to average 2.2% this year and 2.4% next year. The BN government has spent billions of dollars subsidizing everything from rice and fuel to schoolbooks, according to the BBC report.

In the Pew Research survey, 71% called rising prices a “very big problem;” a 38% plurality said inflation should be government’s top priority, more than those citing lack of job opportunities, public debt or the gap between rich and poor.

Here are more detailed survey results and a discussion of the methodology.

Drew DeSilver is a senior writer at the Pew Research Center.

On the eve of the first presidential election of the post-Mubarak era, Egyptians remain hopeful about the future of their country, and they strongly desire both an improved economy and the democratic freedoms they were denied under the previous regime.

As Egyptians head to the polls, the economy is their biggest concern, according to the Pew survey conducted March 19 to April 10. Roughly eight-in-ten (81%) consider improving the economy a very important priority for the country.

And despite a tumultuous and often difficult year, support for democracy has not ebbed. Two-in-three Egyptians (67%) believe democracy is the best form of government, basically unchanged from 71% in 2011.

Read the full report.

A majority of Russians support public protests that followed the December 2011 parliamentary vote, yet 47% believe the election was fair. Notably, 72% of Russians say they have a favorable view of Vladimir Putin and 62% hold a positive opinion of Dmitri Medvedev.

Read the full report and see detailed findings on these subjects:

• National conditions
• Reaction to presidential election, protests
• Views of leaders
• Nationalism and Russia’s global image

The Orange Revolution in Ukraine helped to usher pro-Western liberal Viktor Yushchenko into the president’s office in 2005. Yushchenko promised to fight corruption, reform the economy and seek better relations with the West. Five years later, on the eve of new elections, Ukraine’s economy is in free fall, corruption is still widespread and NATO membership remains elusive. Opposition leader Viktor Yanukovych is circling with promises of a return to stability and a closer relationship with Russia.

Findings from a September 2009 survey by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project show that Ukrainians are not only disenchanted with their current leadership and economic situation; they are also broadly dissatisfied with the democratic and capitalist systems that evolved after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. In fact, of the former Eastern bloc publics surveyed, Ukrainians are the most unhappy with the transition to a democracy and free markets.

Dissatisfaction With General Country Direction, Economy and Leadership

Ukrainians are unhappy with the general direction of their country as well as their economic situation and national leadership. Roughly nine-in-ten (88%) Ukrainians are dissatisfied with the way things are going in their country. A roughly equal percentage (91%) describes the current economic situation in Ukraine as somewhat or very bad, with a majority (59%) saying very bad.

Also, as of September 2009, most Ukrainians disapproved (83%) of President Yushchenko’s handling of his job, with many (41%) saying they strongly disapprove. More recent findings show that President Yushchenko remains widely unpopular. A November 2009 survey conducted by the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), found that most (83%) Ukrainians view Yushchenko negatively and few (3.5%) say they will vote for him in the first round of the presidential election in January 2010.

One key issue for the current and future administrations in Ukraine will likely be corruption — an issue Yushchenko promised to address during his successful bid for office. In fact, seven-in-ten (70%) in Ukraine consider corrupt political leaders a very big problem, up from 63% in 2002.

Corruption is far from the only issue Ukrainians consider important. Many also consider pollution (64%), crime (56%), the spread of HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases (56%), and illegal drugs (46%) to be very big problems.

Disaffection With Changes

Ukrainians are growing less enamored of the changes made to their political and economic systems since 1991. In a 1991 survey conducted just months before the dissolution of the Soviet Union,¹ a large majority (72%) of Ukrainians approved of the change to a multiparty system, whereas only 30% do now. Also, while half (52%) of Ukrainians approved of the change to a capitalist economic system in the early 1990s, only 36% do now. In fact, Ukraine is the only former Eastern bloc country surveyed where more disapprove than approve of the changes to a multiparty system and market economy.

Men, the young and more educated are decidedly more supportive of the dramatic political and economic changes made in the early 1990s. Roughly four-in-ten Ukrainian men approve of the changes to a competitive election system (37%) and a free market economy (44%). Somewhat fewer women express the same views; 25% support the move to multiparty elections and 30% embrace capitalism.

Roughly one-third (34%) of Ukrainians ages 18-29 approve of the change to multiparty elections; only 20% of those 65 or older hold the same view. Nearly half (48%) of 18-29 year-olds in Ukraine also support the move to a free market; only 20% of people 65 or older voice the same opinion.

Ukrainians with at least some college education are also more likely to support the change to multiparty elections (41%) and capitalism (52%) than their less than educated counterparts (25% approve of multiparty system, 28% approve of free markets). By contrast, ethnic Russians in Ukraine are no less likely to approve of these changes than are their ethnic Ukrainian counterparts.

Many now believe a strong leader is better able to solve Ukraine’s problems than a democratic form of government. Slightly more than two-thirds of those in Ukraine (69%) say a strong leader is better, compared with 20% who say democratic government. In Ukraine, confidence in democracy has waned since 1991, when 57% said a democratic government could better solve the nation’s problems.

In addition, many in Ukraine sense that people were actually better off economically under communism than they are under the current system. When asked to consider whether the economic situation for most people today is better, worse or about the same as it was under communism, 62% in Ukraine say worse.

Few Think Ukraine Has Democratic Institutions

While many Ukrainians continue to embrace democratic values and institutions, few think their country has these values and institutions.

Large majorities in Ukraine consider it somewhat or very important to live in a country with a fair judiciary (90%), freedom of religion (86%), multiparty elections (85%), a free media (83%), freedom of speech (82%) and civilian control of the military (55%) with many saying very important.

More Ukrainians consider having a fair judicial system very important than any of the other democratic elements asked about. Nearly seven-in-ten (67%) consider it very important to have a judicial system that treats everyone the same way. Somewhat fewer say it is very important to have multiparty elections (53%), freedom to practice one’s religion (51%), and freedom of the media to report information without censorship (49%). Fewer highly value the freedom to speak openly and criticize the government (43%), and civilian control of the military (30%).

However, few in Ukraine feel that their country is doing a good job ensuring most of those rights and freedoms. For example, only about one-in-ten (11%) think the phrase “there is a judicial system that treats everyone in the same way” describes their country very well. Likewise, only 11% say the phrase “honest elections are held regularly with a choice of at least two political parties” characterizes their country very well, while (13%) feel the same about the media’s ability to report the news without government censorship.

More Ukrainians are convinced their country can be characterized as one in which people can practice their religion freely (31%) and openly say what they think and criticize the government (22%).

Relations With Russia

Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Yanukovych’s preference for closer relations between Ukraine and Russia appears consistent with public sentiment. Roughly half (46%) of the respondents in Ukraine say Russia is having a good influence on their country. Only 25% feel that this influence is bad.

Views of Russian influence in Ukraine vary by ethnicity and region. Ethnic Russians (81%) are far more likely to view Russian influence positively than ethnic Ukrainians (52%). In addition more people living in Eastern (87%) and Southern (56%) Ukraine, which are the regions in which most Ethnic Russians live, view the influence of Russia as good than do those in the West (32%).

Ukrainians also view Russia as one of their most dependable allies. When asked to name the countries they can most rely on as a dependable ally in the future, a majority of Ukrainians (58%) think of Russia. Ukrainians were also asked to name the countries and organizations that pose the greatest threat. More than one-in-four (27%) in Ukraine see the U.S. as one of their top threats.

All is not rosy in terms of Ukrainian views of Russia; just as with other former Soviet and Eastern European publics, Ukrainians are worried about being too dependent on Russia for their energy resources. More than seven-in-ten (73%) in Ukraine express these concerns and, since 2007, worries about dependence on Russian energy resources have increased significantly (+10 percentage points).

Views of NATO

While current President Viktor Yushchenko is a proponent of Ukraine joining NATO, few Ukrainians hold this view. About half in Ukraine hold unfavorable opinions of NATO (51%) and oppose joining this security organization (51%).

Ethnic Russians are far more likely to hold an unfavorable view of NATO (74%) and oppose Ukrainian membership in the security organization (74%) than are ethnic Ukrainians (37% hold a favorable view of NATO, 46% oppose NATO membership).

_{1. The Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press (the forerunner of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press) conducted the Pulse of Europe survey from April 15 to May 31, 1991. Interviews were conducted with 12,569 people in Britain, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Spain, as well as three republics of the Soviet Union: Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine.}

On the eve of the 2008 Russian presidential election, opinion polling suggests the result of the election might be a foregone conclusion: Vladimir Putin’s handpicked successor, Dmitry Medvedev, is likely to become the next president of Russia.

Pew Global Attitudes Project survey data from 2007, along with other recent surveys, have found strong and consistent public support for Putin. And while the world at large may be concerned about Putin’s increased centralization of power and rolling-back of democratic rights, there is little indication that Russians share these concerns. In fact, surveys consistently find that Russians have a definite preference for a strong leader over a democratic government, and large majorities say that a strong economy is more important than a good democracy to solve Russia’s problems.

Putin’s Overwhelming Popularity

While initially an unknown in Russia when assuming office on Dec. 31,1999 following Boris Yeltsin’s resignation, Putin has since enjoyed the confidence and support of the Russian people. Pew’s results indicate that Putin’s appeal is near universal: More than eight-in-ten Russians’ have confidence in Putin to do the right thing regarding world affairs. Confidence in Putin cuts across all ages and income levels as well as both sexes and has been strong since 2003.

For most of his eight years as president, Putin has also maintained high approval ratings. With only weeks left in his presidency, this trend remains strong. Recent surveys conducted by the Yuri Levada Analytical Center show that more than eight-in-ten Russians say they approve of Putin’s handling of the post of president of Russia (Feb. 8-11, 85% approve, 13% disapprove; Jan. 18-22, 86% approve, 13% disapprove).

Recent results from a Yuri Levada survey also suggest that this nearly universal confidence in and approval of Putin may well transfer to Putin’s chosen successor Medvedev. Just before Putin announced his choice, only 35% of likely voters indicated that they would vote for Medvedev for president (December 7-10, 2007); shortly after Putin’s endorsement of Medvedev for president and Medvedev’s announcement that it was of “utmost importance” to have Putin as head of government, support for Medvedev jumped to 79%.¹

It’s the Economy, Not Democracy, Stupid

Russia’s experience with democracy and a market economy has been much like a roller coaster ride — lots of momentum, highs and lows and sudden stops. Euphoria and hope followed in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, along with real increases in the democratic freedoms allowed to citizens. Unfortunately these were soon accompanied by hyperinflation, high unemployment and, in 1998, the Russian financial crisis. The advent of Putin’s leadership in 1999 brought a rollback of democratic rights but also solid economic growth. Russians’ preference for a strong leader over a democratic government and a strong economy over a good democracy reflect both the political and economic uncertainty of the 1990s, and the substantial GDP growth the country has enjoyed during Putin’s presidency.

In the immediate aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, half of Russians had faith in a democratic form of government to solve the country’s problems — a larger number than had faith in a strong leader (39%) to do the same. By 2002, the pattern had reversed to its current status with more Russians having faith in a strong leader than in a democratic government.

When Russians are asked which is more important to them, a good democracy or a strong economy, more than seven-in-ten choose a strong economy. Russians’ preference for a strong economy over a good democracy has remained widespread since 2002.

Russians’ preference for a strong economy over a good democracy in shared by others in Eastern Europe. However. this sentiment is more prominent in Russia and Ukraine than in Bulgaria, and far more so than among other east European publics surveyed.

Notes

¹ Russians were given a list of possible candidates from which they could choose. The list for the survey conducted December 21-24 and December 7-10 were similar but not identical: December 21-24 – Dmitry Medvedev, Gennady Zyuganov, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Mikhail Kasyanov, Boris Nemtsov Andrei Bogdanov, Vladimir Bukovsky, Nikolai Kuryanovich, Oleg Shenin; December 7-10 – Dmitry Medvedev, Gennady Zyuganov, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Mikhail Kasyanov, Boris Nemtsov Grigory Yavlinsky, Sergei Ivanov, Viktor Zubkov.

Until recently, Kenya was considered something of a success story in a troubled region; now, however, it is consumed by political and ethnic violence following last week’s disputed reelection of President Mwai Kibaki. The unrest has shocked many both inside and outside Kenya who believed the election would confirm the country’s reputation as East Africa’s most stable developing democracy.

As a recent Pew Global Attitudes survey highlighted, this optimism was not unwarranted — before the election, Kenyans were feeling relatively good about the direction of their nation. Moreover, Kenyans were overwhelmingly optimistic about the elections — two-in-three believed they would be conducted fairly.¹

However, as the survey also revealed, Kenyans have long been one of the major African nations most worried about tribal conflicts. Half of Kenyans rated conflict among tribal groups a “very big problem” for their country — the second highest percentage among the 10 African nations included in Pew’s April 2007 poll. Only Ivory Coast and Nigeria — both of which have also experienced considerable ethnic violence in recent years — had similar levels of concern. Obviously, it would appear that, for the moment at least, tribal tensions have trumped the confidence Kenyans held in their electoral system and democratic institutions.

Public’s Mood Had Been Upbeat

Overall, the survey found a relatively upbeat outlook in Kenya, especially compared with survey findings from five years ago. In this year’s poll, 45% said they are satisfied with the country’s direction. While the satisfied still comprise less than a majority, their percentage in the population is a five-fold increase from 2002; it also represents the second-highest level of satisfaction among the African nations surveyed.

Views of the economy have improved even more dramatically. In 2002, only 7% said the country’s economic situation was good, compared with 60% in 2007. And Kenyans are feeling this economic progress in their own lives — 54% say their personal financial situation is better now than it was five years ago. Among the 10 African countries surveyed, only Senegal has enjoyed more progress in personal finances.

Of course, as in much of sub-Saharan Africa, poverty is a serious problem in Kenya, and many of its citizens remain unable to afford life’s basic necessities. Roughly six-in-ten say that within the last year they have been unable to afford health care (62%), clothing (58%) or food (57%) — relatively high levels of deprivation, even when compared with other poor nations in the region.²

Strong Support for Democracy

The 2007 Pew survey found solid support for democratic values and institutions in Kenya (as well as in other sub-Saharan African countries³ ). For instance, Kenyans overwhelmingly express support for the principle of honest multiparty elections — roughly three-in-four (74%) say it is “very important” to live in a country that has such elections.

Majorities also consider it very important to live in a country with freedom of religion (83%), an impartial judiciary (79%), a free press (72%), and free speech (68%). Just under half (46%) also rate living in a country with civilian control of the military very important. A look across all six of these democratic values finds that only Tanzanians demonstrate a higher level of support for democracy among the 10 African publics surveyed.

Prior to the election, Kenyans were generally satisfied with the state of democracy in their country — 72% said they were either very or somewhat satisfied with the way democracy is working in Kenya. Moreover, a substantial majority was optimistic about the coming elections — 67% believed the next presidential election would be conducted fairly, while only 28% thought they would be unfair.

However, more skepticism was apparent among the Luo tribe to which opposition candidate Raila Odinga, the declared loser in last week’s disputed election, belongs. Luos were split almost evenly between those who felt the election would be fair (45%) and those who predicted it would be conducted unfairly (48%). Since the elections, many among the Luo and other tribal groups have accused President Kibaki, who belongs to the Kikuyu tribe, of election fraud. The Kikuyu, the largest and wealthiest among Kenya’s 40-plus tribes, have been politically dominant since Kenya gained independence from Britain in 1963.

Worries About Tribal Conflict

In the 2007 survey, fully half (50%) of adult Kenyans identified tribal conflict as a very big problem in their country — about the same proportion as said so in the 2002 Global Attitudes Survey (52%). An additional 28% identified such conflict as a moderately big problem.

Among other African countries surveyed, only in Ivory Coast, a nation riven by its own ethnic conflicts in recent years, does a higher percentage of the population (56%) characterize tribal/ethnic conflict as a very big problem. In Nigeria, where ethnic differences have also led to bloodshed, nearly half (48%) see them as a major problem.

In Kenya, concern about tribal conflict is above average among members of the Luo tribe who, along with other ethnic groups, have grown restive under the longstanding political dominance of the rival Kikuyus: 54% of Luos call ethnic conflict a very big problem. By contrast, among members of Kibaki’s Kikuyu tribe, 44% call ethnic conflict a major problem.

Notes

¹The questions regarding whether the upcoming elections would be fair and satisfaction with democracy were conducted in conjunction with The New York Times.

²For more on deprivation in African nations and elsewhere, see “A Rising Tide Lifts Mood in the Developing World,” Pew Global Attitudes Project, July 24, 2007.

³For more on attitudes toward democratic values in Africa and elsewhere, see “World Publics Welcome Trade — But Not Immigration,” Pew Global Attitudes Project, October 4, 2007.

The coming presidential election in South Korea on Dec. 19 is drawing attention to the growing presence of Christianity in a country that as recently as 1960 had fewer than a million Christians. The odds-on favorite in the race, Lee Myung-bak of the conservative Grand National Party, is a leader in one of South Korea’s largest churches, Somang Presbyterian Church. Lee, a former mayor of Seoul who once ran one of the country’s largest construction companies, is strongly supported by South Korea’s significant Protestant population.

By South Korean standards, Somang Presbyterian is not unusually large. South Korea, in fact, is home to 15 megachurches with an adult attendance of more than 10,000 people on a given Sunday¹. This includes the largest church in the world, the Yoido Full Gospel Church, which reports a membership of upwards of 800,000 and has an adult attendance of more than 230,000 on a given Sunday.

Approximately 30% of South Korea’s population now identifies as Christian, according to the 2005 national census. The growth in South Korean Christianity has been fueled at least in part by the rapid spread of pentecostal varieties of Protestantism.

These pentecostal groups now represent approximately four-in-ten among the 25% of South Koreans in urban areas who self-identify as Protestant, according to a recent Pew Forum survey². The rapid growth in the number of Christian adherents in South Korea in the past 40 years has come largely at the expense of those who do not identify with any religion, whose percentage of the population decreased from 57% in 1985 to 47% in 2005. The number of South Koreans who identify themselves as Buddhist increased only slightly from approximately 20% in 1985 to 23% in 2005.

South Korea now has the largest percentage of Christians in East Asia, according to estimates of church statistics gathered by the World Christian Database. By contrast, the percentage of Christians in China and Taiwan is below 10%; in Japan and North Korea it is below 5%.

Not only are their numbers growing, but the level of religious intensity of South Korean Christians is much higher than that of other religious groups in the country. This is reflected in a recent survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, in which more than a third (35%) of South Korean Christians say that religion is very important in their lives. The comparable numbers among Buddhists and the unaffiliated are 3% and 1%, respectively.

This strong religious commitment on the part of South Korean Christians seems to drive their efforts to convert their fellow countrymen. Indeed, the Forum survey finds that a third (33%) of South Korean Christians share their faith with nonbelievers at least once a week, and another third (36%) share their faith at least several times a year.

This strong evangelistic impulse does not stop at the water’s edge; it extends abroad as well. According to the Korean World Mission Association, there are now at least 14,000 South Korean Protestant missionaries, second only to the number of American Protestant missionaries. The targets of these missionary activities include places such as China, North Korea and Afghanistan, where the kidnapping of South Korean church volunteers by the Taliban last summer again called attention to these assertive missionary efforts.

The standoff with the Taliban generated considerable divisions back home, where resentment of the country’s Christian community appears to be growing. This resentment may be fed at least in part by the increasingly high public profile many South Korean Christians are assuming – not only in church life but also in corporate boardrooms and the National Assembly. Indeed, according to an August 2007 report in The Independent (U.K.), “the chairmen of all of South Korea’s top-10 companies are Christians, as are the majority of National Assembly members.”

Not only are more South Koreans identifying as Christian, but the Forum survey finds that they are very active in their congregations, with more than three-in-four (77%) saying they attend church at least once a week. In addition, the survey finds that half (50%) of South Korean Christians believe that religious groups should express their views on social and political questions, compared with slightly more than a quarter (28%) among their fellow countrymen. Moreover, the survey finds that two-thirds of South Korean Christians (67%) agree that it is important for political leaders to have strong religious beliefs, compared with fewer than one-in-four (22%) among the country’s non-Christian public.

If elected, Lee would not be the first Christian, nor the first Protestant, president of South Korea; the country’s first president, Syngman Rhee, for instance, was a convert to Methodism. But Lee’s election could serve to further underscore the growing public presence of the Christian community in South Korea as well as the increasing influence of South Korean Christians throughout Asia.

¹Hong Young-gi, “Encounter with Modernity: The ‘McDonaldization’ and ‘Charismatization’ of Korean Mega-churches,” International Review of Mission, April 2003.

²“Sprit and Power: A 10-country Survey of Pentecostals,” October 2006.