The government is reportedly considering the inclusion of politicians found guilty of corruption, such as Shin Gye-ryun, Kwon No-kap, Suh Chung-won, and Ahn Hee-jung, when it issues a series of amnesty measures on the anniversary of Liberation Day on August 15. The presidential office and the Ministry of Justice say that nothing has been finalized, but they are not denying the possibility the pardons could include politicians, in addition to the businessmen to be granted amnesty.
There is not much that needs to be said about the issue. If the politicians being mentioned are given pardons, everyone will think of the move as a way for president Roh Moo-hyun to rescue Ahn, his closest of aides, and Shin, who was his chief secretary when he was a candidate. Members of the opposition are only being included to make things look right. You saw the same format used in previous governments. When Roh was elected four years ago, it was not this kind of gift-giving and favoritism the voters were hoping for. What they wanted was a new kind of politics that eradicated the political practices of old. Does he want to forsake the people’s expectations and backtrack South Korea’s political system?
Reportedly, the argument in favor of pardoning Ahn is that his was not a crime of personal corruption. He was a political scapegoat, the argument says, having been the man who managed less-than-aboveboard presidential campaign funds, something that was just part of common practice on the political landscape. Some also say that Ahn and friends are suffering reverse discrimination for being close to the president at a time when some ruling and opposition politicians, who did time due to illegal campaign funding from the 2002 presidential election, have already been pardoned and had their full rights restored, and are already back on the scene and in public office.
That is thinking that does not see the forest through the trees. Illegal presidential campaign funds are a structural evil that is more harmful to the political process than is personal corruption. Supporting Ahn because he didn’t pocket any of the cash involved is thinking based in political cronyism and not on a concern for the people. As hard as it may be, this is something that inevitably requires resolute measures if the roots of such political practices are to be cut away. It would be more honorable for the men themselves to rise again only after having served their time and thoroughly reflected on their actions. The claim that they are the victims of "reverse discrimination" makes no sense because it is based on misled ideas about pardons from yesteryear.
The right to grant pardons as defined in the constitution was not meant to give the president omnipotent authority, with which he can release criminals however he desires, as was possible during the dynastic era. It is merely special authority given to the president so that he may perform acts of grace as an exceptional means to promote communal reconciliation and unity, with the separation of the three branches of government still remaining the standard. When it is welcomed only by those on the receiving end and not by the majority of the country, refraining from the use of pardon would be consistent with the spirit of the constitution.
[Editorial] Pardon of politicians would be regression to old practices |
