SPEAKING
FREELY Personality politics stifle Korean
democracy By Steven Denney
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please
click hereif you are interested in
contributing.
Democracy has yet to
be consolidated in South Korea. Though it is all
but absolutely certain Korea will never revert
back to an authoritarian state, the hard fought
for democracy that Korea rightfully calls itself
has yet to mature. Procedurally, it is a
representative democracy, insofar as people cast
ballots for candidates that represent them as men
and women in parliament or as president of the
country. However, substantively, Korea falls short
of ideal.
Of the myriad of problems that
face Korean democracy (and all
democracies, mind you),
the fractured government-society relationship and
the persistence of a weak party structure stand
out as most prominent.
Though Korea is a
democracy, its political parties are unable to
represent people in a way supportive of democratic
governance. More specifically, and most notable,
Korea lacks sufficient vertical accountability:
the government is not responsive to the electorate
and civil society. In other words: there is a
representation deficiency in Korean democracy.
As a consequence, democratic governance -
a functional balance of the state, civil society,
and the private sector - is hindered; though there
is participation, there is a lack of
institutionalization; though political parties
exist, they do not transform popular demands and
needs into concrete policies to be implemented by
the government.
Solutions to solve the
government's lack of representation abound, but
one of the more convincing is the argument for
strengthening Korea's political parties - the
citizens' conduit to the government. Strong
political parties would increase representation
and thus enhance democratic governance. Although
putting any point throughout Korea's short
democratic history under the microscope would
prove the above point, there is no more pertinent
time than now with a presidential election
underway.
Change is not always a good
thing Korea, like most of East Asia, is a
dynamic place; everything seems in constant flux,
construction, or remodeling. Political parties are
no exception. Followers of domestic politics will
note with agitation of the constant change in
party name and composition. Although party change,
in and of itself, is not a bad thing, the
frequency with which Korean parties change would
alarm any political scientist and is indeed
indicative of a deeper issues.
Political
parties in South Korea are both "unstable" and
"inchoate" representatives of society; generally
speaking, there are three identifiable culprit:
parties compete under relatively similar
ideologies, command little partisan loyalty or
accountability, and are extremely weak in carrying
out the mandate conferred by the electorate. The
inability of political parties to establish
themselves as channels through which society and
government interact in a civil and effective
manner has resulted in a situation best described
by Samuel Huntington.
In his book
Political Order in Changing Societies,
Huntington posits the notion that an increase in
mobilization and citizen participation without
adequate institutionalization leads to ineffective
governance. In other words: participation without
organization results in "chaos" and highlights the
lack of vertical accountability.
As the
2008 Anti-US Beef Candlelight Protests and the
more recent 2012 KORUS-FTA demonstrations reveal,
mass participation, no matter how well organized
from within the protesting group, will yield very
little in the way of new policy implementation.
Though not chaotic in the sense that
government-society relations are marked by social
unrest and government suppression, the absence of
an effective avenue for citizens to lobby the
government for redress leaves society, as a whole,
feeling frustrated and neglected. When society,
especially Korean society, feels skirted, it takes
matters into its own hands, and resorts to more
direct measures as means to convey their
collective grievances to the government, e.g. 2008
march on the Blue House - a peaceful but
ultimately ineffective effort.
If the
Classics have taught us anything about democracy,
it is that direct democracy is to be avoided.
Without the support of a strong party, there is no
effective mediator between government and people.
The problem, however, is not the party, per se; it
is the person.
Personalizing
Politics Personalization, as it is called,
is rooted in part of Korea's ethical-philosophical
foundation and recent political history. As a
strongly Confucian society, emphasis on the
person, rather than the rule, norm, or
institution, is a deeply embedded trait of Korean
society and philosophy on governance. It is a
well-known maxim of Confucius that protecting the
face and dignity of one's father is of the upmost
importance, even if the father were to, say,
steal. Such dictums are often interpreted as
Confucius attempt to establish a philosophy that
matched human nature, not what was necessarily
good for government.
The maxim
gunsoengbuilche (the king, the teacher, and
the father are one), a maxim attributed to Chuhui,
a saint of Confucianism, was understood as a
foundational state philosophy during the Chosun
era. In the post war era, political parties were
used as amorphous support vehicles for candidates
opposing dictatorial rule.
Thus,
pre-modern and modern history highlights the
historical roots of the personalization of
politics. Even in modern times, despite the
majoritarian, single-member electoral system,
Koreans still largely vote based on candidates'
personalities, rather than their
party-affiliation.
Though this is trait
detectable in other political systems, it holds
especially true for the Korean electorate.
According to one source, "Sixty percent of voters
claim to select candidates by their
personalities."
It is common and seemingly
sensible to believe that one person has the
ability to solve all, or most, of the problems
plaguing a society; or, for the more politically
astute, that one person, though not possessing
god-like capabilities, is capable of transforming
or overhauling whole systems by virtue of their
exceptional skills and qualifications. This is
nowhere better illustrated than the outpouring of
support for recently declared presidential
candidate Ahn Chol-soo. A quote from a longtime
Seoul-based analyst best captures the sentiment of
both groups:
Ahn is a man who is, one can rightly
say, "representative of everything mainstream
Korea dreams of becoming." Not only that, he is
a progressive with a businessman's mind and a
businessman who has succeeded in the cutthroat
world of South Korean society while retaining a
moral and ethical compass.
What is
not to like about Ahn's personal credentials? He
seems like the embodiment of everything that makes
South Korea successful, a living manifestation of
the "Miracle on the Han." The analyst continues:
[H]ome to some of the finest
shipbuilders, steel, cars, chemicals and
electronics manufacturers on earth ... [South
Korea] is a nation that can also lay claim in
the best possible way to being Adam Smith and
Napoleon's mythical "nation of shopkeepers." For
what reason is "a medical doctor, professor,
self-taught computer entrepreneur, and corporate
leader" Ahn Cheol-soo not a good person to run
such a country … ?
Though Ahn may
indeed be a representative of all that is good
about Korea, there is one thing he is not:
associated with any political party. That this
seems like a good thing to some people, makes it
all the harder to understand the harm Ahn is doing
to the consolidation of Korean democracy.
It is true that being outside the system
means not being subjected to its idiosyncratic
rules and norms and all the criticism that
party-association brings with it; but it is
equally true that outsiders that skirt the party
vetting process, like Ahn, are in no small way
responsible for preventing the
institutionalization of strong political parties,
thus perpetuating the weak party structure in
Korea and the inability for Korean political
parties to effectively aggregate people's
grievances, formulate a policy solution in
response, and then effectively implement it.
According to a speech made earlier this year, Ahn
seems to think the party, not the person, is the
problem.
Korean scholars, students, and
pundits are also well aware of the need to move
towards a more substantive, programmatic political
system that emphasizes real policy debate and
connecting the people to their government.
A recent article in the Korean Dong-a
Ilbo, recapping and analyzing the second American
presidential debate, took special note of what the
two candidates debated, emphasizing that actual
policies were discussed, rather than, say, the
character of the candidates (although those that
watched the debate surely noted some personal
attacks).
Of particular relevance here is
a caption under an image of Mitt Romney and Barack
Obama debating. It reads: "Questions from the
people ... a fiery policy debate ... it would be
nice to see Korea do this, too."
Solution: Ahn's noble
concession In order to improve
representation and thus democratic governance in
Korea, political parties must be strengthened. To
redress the issues identified above, Korea must
move from the personalization of politics towards
the institutionalization of political parties.
Political parties based on clearly delineable
ideologies, associated with clear bases of
support, and expected to implement policies that
reflect the will and wishes of the people will
solve the problems identified by Lee and avoid the
type of chaos identified by Huntington.
Even if Moon Jae-in, Ahn's
progressive competitor, drops out and supports
the currently independent candidate, the damage
will have already been done. In typical Korean
fashion, the party will have rallied around the
candidate, instead of the candidate conforming
to the party. Moon, who was vetted by the
Liberal Democratic United Party (DUP), most
closely resembles a candidate of the party,
however imperfect that party is. Park Gun-hye,
the conservative candidate, is another story for
another essay.
In an ideal world, the
following actions would occur, in order.
First, Ahn Chul-soo would drop out of the
race as the progressive, giving the "legitimate"
candidate Moon Jae-in his rightful spot as the
progressive-Liberal candidate.
Next, the
National Assembly, capitalizing on the attention
garnered by Ahn's noble "concession for
consolidation", would do the following: adopt a
law requiring all political parties to release
detailed policy agendas that include a list of
policies the party intends to implement if elected
to power; so as not to overwhelm voters or rush
political parties into drawing up policy platform
drafts, a policy agenda release should be required
only every five years, during the presidential
election season, somewhere around five-six months
prior to election day.
Though the act of
releasing a policy agenda does not mean everything
will or even ought to be implemented, the act
itself will provide the Korean electorate with a
list of policy options that will, hopefully,
reflect (or force the party into choosing) an
ideology different form the other political
parties.
The presence of a policy agenda
will help focus the voter's attention to the
issues, rather than the person, and will
discourage potential independents from declaring
their intention to run outside the framework of a
political party - an party-backed candidate would
find it easy to criticize a "plan-less"
independent. In addition to a policy agenda law,
the parliament would also make a general
announcement to the Press of their responsibility
to hold parties, not people responsible for the
state of Korean society.
The result: a
more representative, vertically accountable
democratic government with ideologically
differentiated political parties that respond to
the grievances of a loyal base. In an ideal world.
Steven Denney is a second-year
graduate student at Yonsei University in Seoul,
Korea. He is the Editor in Chief of the Yonsei
Journal of International Studies and an Assistant
Editor at SinoNK.com.Speaking Freely is an
Asia Times Online feature that allows guest
writers to have their say.Please
click hereif you are interested in
contributing. Articles submitted for this section
allow our readers to express their opinions and do
not necessarily meet the same editorial standards
of Asia Times Online's regular contributors.
(Copyright 2012 Steven
Denney)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
