[Column] The sorry state of Korean democracy

Jeon Yong-uk, Seoul National University Professor of Korean History

How many times over the past decade has the National Assembly approved a national budget prior to the legal deadline of December 2? Don’t get too surprised: twice, in 1997 and 2002. Both were presidential election years, and the situation forced the Assembly to get the matter out of the way. This year, it’s happening again. The oposition Grand National Party (GNP) is linking the "re-revision" of the Private School Law to every other bill before the Assembly and is refusing to move on the rest of the items on the docket until it gets what it wants. Thus, there was no vote on the 2007 budget on December 15 as scheduled. You may recall that the Assembly missed the deadline for approving a budget last year, too, over the very same Private School Law debate. What is the issue at hand when a political party that shares responsibility for running the country puts off dealing with a massive pile of legislation, and by doing so violates the constitutionally stipulated requirement that the annual budget be passed 30 days prior to the date it kicks in?

In Korea, private schools are established and operated by private "educational foundations." They are not operated for profit, and exist for the public’s benefit. They are "public goods" by nature and yet in the unique educational environment that exists in Korea they have come to be seen as private property. Thanks to a lack of strict management by the government, there have been frequent cases of financial and personnel issues and corruption, and as private schools started becoming yet another way to acquire wealth, you saw the frequent use of terms like "irregularities at private schools" (biri sahak), "corrupt private schools" (bupae sahak), and "nepotistic private schools" (jokbeol sahak). The revision to the Private School Law passed in 2005 requires that private schools have regulatory "councils" (daehak pyeonguihoe), or boards with members brought in from outside their operating bodies, and that minutes from board meetings be made public. The revision was widely praised for being a chance to improve on the public benefits of private schools and increase transparency, and it was supported by a majority of the country.

The major point of contention when it comes to the "re-revision" of the law is who gets to recommend people for trustee boards, and who can send in interim board members. The ruling party wants to keep the current "open board" format, while the GNP wants to expand the range of who can make recommendations, to include alumni associations, parents’ associations, and related religious bodies. The GNP also wants courts to send in interim board members instead of the education ministry. The ruling party says it cannot accept the GNP’s idea because it is a plan to make sure all board positions are filled with people who fit the school operators’ liking, which would go against the whole idea behind the law’s initial revision.

According to a study by one member of the National Assembly, only 13 out of 196 colleges across the country, or 6.6 percent, have revised their bylaws to reflect the original revision of the law, though it has been months since they took effect. If this is true, this means that private schools are engaging in a collective disobedience, and the education ministry is doing nothing about it. The GNP is placing everything on "re-revising" the law while ignoring everything on the agenda at the National Assembly because it is way too eager to please the conservative religious groups that operate the majority of private educational foundations and private schools, and because the current dynamics within the party are such that the hard-liners are in control.

Stop saying "I’m right and you’re wrong," and take a long, hard look around you. Look at the bureaucrats, who show no desire to enforce a law that should be in effect; at a National Assembly that is being held hostage by a majority opposition that, in order to "re-revise" a law passed a year ago, is abandoning the principles of parliamentarianism and ignoring the deadline for passing a budget two years in a row; and look at political party culture, where the issue of revising the law all over again is judged by how it might affect votes in the presidential election, and is also being used as leverage in internal power struggles. It’s sad, but the fact of the matter is that when you look around, what you see is the current state of Korean democracy, where things exist as slogans and don’t actually function properly. The people are not despairing over the poor state of the population’s welfare. They’re far more discouraged by how politics is not working to set the people’s welfare straight or make any guarantees, issue any alternatives, or give any hope.

Please direct questions or comments to [[e-mail]]