 |
Park Myung-lim
Yonsei University Graduate School of International Studies
Korean democracy is heading towards a crisis. In last week’s regional elections, voters moved in a dramatically opposite direction as compared to their choices in the parliamentary election two years ago. An even greater shock is the lopsided nature of the results: an overwhelming victory for the ruling party in one election and an overwhelming defeat in the next, a rare phenomenon in democratic societies. These results beg for deep societal introspection. Leaning too far in either direction carries with it negative effects that could emerge at any moment. The development of democracy is at stake.
Since democracy was achieved in South Korea, the key problem for society has been the low level of cooperation between further democratic development, a capable and stable government, and a better quality of life for all. How can this be improved? The urgent need is to search for answers for the three basic requisites for democracy: its conditions, its system, and good leadership.
The essential conditions for democracy involve lessening the impact of such polarizing forces as globalization, marketization, and socioeconomic disparity. The problem is that these phenomena have a high level of overlap between them, making it harder to target them. As for socioeconomic disparity, the top 10 percent of income earners take in 49.9 times more than those at the bottom 10 percent. Furthermore, despite depressing social indicators--such as the world’s lowest birth rate for three consecutive years, the highest suicide rate for persons in their early twenties, and the fourth highest overall suicide rate for an OECD member state--the general public is not willing to accept any changes to existing social structure or policy.
Furthermore, globalization, marketization, and poliarization are getting to the point where regulating them goes beyond the scope of the role that can be played by a democratic government. This is coupled with the fact that Korean democracy is now surrounded by conditions that threaten it.
When social integration, that essential element of democracy, is dismantled, what suffers is democracy itself, not the market. Subsequently, democracy today aims for social integration and a better quality of life. Some European countries go as far as making a “socialist state” a national goal in their constitutions. According to recent democratic theory, the ultimate aim of democratization and socialization is humanization, including the ’social dignity index’ and ’human development index.’ Democratic development will take forever if there is no policy aimed at making society more humanist. If globalization--for example, a free trade agreement between Korea and the United States--were to promote the dismantling of social integration, it could go beyond being a socioeconomic issue and become a factor that threatens Korean democracy.
Under the current constitutional system, it will be hard to give birth to an able, stable democratic government. The problem with the current system has become apparent enough during the past twenty years, due to each administration’s inability to resolve socioeconomic issues and the instability of political party structures. Under the current five-year, single-term presidency and the skewed timing of regional, parliamentary, and presidential elections, attempting socioeconomic reform is close to impossible. It is especially hard for a single-term government to surmount the strength of the market. The current electoral system seriously restricts the continuity of party politics, the ability to produce policy and the ability to carry it out. It forces single-term governments to make market-friendly policies in order to achieve anything.
The instability and discontinuity present in the party system lies at the center of yet another problem for Korean democracy. Since 1987, there has been one change of government, while the ruling party has changed some seven times. Along with these rapid shifts in the ruling party, the large-scale exclusion of labor and social issues in the current constitution means that parties are unable to execute worthwhile policy. The goal of presidents is to produce achievements while in office, and the pressure ruling parties feel because of their goal to win presidential elections seriously weakens administrations’ competence. The result is that the second half of every democratic government’s term has resulted in a loss of policy direction.
The parliamentary and regional elections that "pass judgment on the government" are carried out as votes for parties, whereas presidential elections are "votes for candidates," a disparity ingrained into the system. In addition, the still-present regionalism in South Korean politics clashes with further democratic development. It would be hard to defend any further delay in reforming the current system to allow for a wider spectrum of representation and range of ideology among the political parties. Overcoming the estrangement of politics from civil society, as well as the improvement of competence and responsibility, are all in great need of improvement, as well.
When assessing the accomplishments of government, leadership has the most responsibility to bear in the short run. The current administration and ruling party have demonstrated a mix of the worst conditions and the worst policy strategies. This is seen in terms of promoting socioeconomic equality, education, reasonable real-estate pricing, balanced U.S.-S.K. relations, and a bridge between policy goals and policy results. The results of the 2004 parliamentary elections -- which were made possible because of an impeachment scandal -- led to the creation of the first ruling party majority in the National Assembly actually created by the people. Can one hold the opposition party, the media, the market, and civic groups responsible for the confused state of affairs after that perfect opportunity for reform was missed? The responsibility lies largely with the current administration.
The reason we stress the importance of leadership is because poor policy choices estrange social conditions and the governmental system from democracy. Now that South Korea has experienced the first period of democratization during the governments of Roh Tae-woo and Kim Young-sam and the second period during the governments of Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun, the work that lies ahead is clear. Through the unification of improved social conditions, a good government system and able leadership, South Korean society needs to create alternatives that allow democratic government and a better quality of life to run in parallel. If desirable alternatives are not produced, Korea will face an ironic situation, one in which democracy itself faces a long-term crisis as a result of democratization.
