 |
|
Prof. Choi Jang-jip
|
Professor, author, and democracy movement veteran Choi Jang-jip
This year marks the 20th anniversary of the June 1987 democracy uprisings. What is more, there will be presidential elections held this December. Throughout the past 20 years, there have been many views on the social changes South Korea has seen, particularly the pro-democracy movement and the 10 years of the Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun administrations. In order to evaluate the successes and limits of the Roh administration and the democracy movement, as well as the path that must be taken from here, The Hankyoreh conducted an interview with Korea University professor Choi Jang-jip.
Professor Choi is often referred to as a scholar who represents post-1980s progressivism in the field of political science. He graduated from Korea University, took his M.A. and Ph.D. at the University of Chicago, and served as the chairman of then-President Kim Dae-jung’s Policy Planning Committee in 1998. After resigning from his post, he distanced himself from the political world and devoted himself to research. His published works include "The Korean Labor Movement and the State," (1988) "The Conditions and Prospects of Korean Democracy," (1996) "Democracy After Democratization," (2002) and "The Democratization of Democracy" (2006).
Professor Choi (64) said in an interview held in mid-January with The Hankyoreh that "the policies and direction of the Roh government over the past four years have strayed from the hopes of the democratization movement. The Roh government failed to perform as a democracy."
Professor Choi critiqued that, "struggling for reelection without any content policywise does not mesh with the principles of democracy. The government failed to show leadership, and thus a [regime] change could be a natural outcome.
Q. It is the final year of the Roh administration. Please evaluate as a whole the successes and problems of the Roh administration as a ‘true democracy.’
A. There has been a yawning gap between the people’s expectations and the actual policies that President Roh carried out. Indeed, it is doubtful as to whether the Roh administration may be referred to as being reformist or progressive at all. As neoliberal globalization may be called radical in its own right, he was a revolutionary in full sprint. This is particularly evident in the [proposed] U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement.
The greatest source of negative influence sprung from President Roh’s method of comprehending politics. It is true that democracy is a process of broad conflict between elements of society, that various interest groups are represented by political parties, and that the Assembly serves as an organ to express the will of the people. But he excessively relied on dividing the ruling party from the government, and detouring around the functions of the political parties and National Assembly to put policymaking in the hands of Blue House officials, specialists, and bureaucrats. I see this perspective of politics the president has as being manifested in his prior pitch for a multi-party coalition [which he put foward last year, but was rejected by the opposition party] as well as in his proposals for constitutional revision [which he put forth last month].
Q. President Roh spoke of amendment measures and the overcoming of deficiencies in the 1987 Constitution. There has also been criticism from academia that the 1987 Constitution has failed to keep pace with the democratization of our society. How do you evaluate the 1987 Constitution?
A. One may call the 1987 system as the "post-democratization system." Democratization was achieved through an organized movement, but the fundamental characteristic of the 1987 system was in ensuring coexistence with the ancien regime. The problem is that, recently, the term "post-democratization system" has been politicized and turned into an ideology. It is fundamentally a reductionist view of politics to assert that all problems in Korean democracy result from the 1987 Constitution, the five-year presidential term, or regionalism.
Q. President Roh said that he would stick to the single constitutional reform of changing the presidential tenure system in order to prove he was not enacting some political strategy.
A. The president raising of the issue at this time is in itself a very destructive political act. Another problem is his uncompromising stance in challenging politicians to choose simply between either following or opposing him. People are surprised that he would aggressively seek to change the rules of the game at the end of his term. The timing and method for the presentation of this issue were poorly devised.
There are also problems in the content of his constitutional reform proposal to set the presidential and assembly elections at a four-year interval. The assertion for reform rests on the issue of government efficiency. Yet, when viewed exclusively from the perspective of governmental efficiency, authoritarianism beats democracy, hands-down. It is wrong to interpret elections as being a waste of time and resources. When compared with other countries, Korea has fewer elections. Each election serves as an opportunity for the citizenry to hold pride in their system and reaffirm their loyalty to it.
Q. Do you think the Roh administration of the last four years has failed to be a true democracy?
A. I think they failed. Though it may be glib to say that, in view of the loss of faith from his supporters, and the worsening of socioeconomic inequalities, it is clear that he has failed when his policies are looked at objectively. However, although I say his administration failed to create a true democracy I am not saying that he cannot restore ethical authority as a leader during his remaining tenure.
Q. There are some who argue that he was crippled by the attacks upon him by conservative newspapers, including the Chosun Ilbo, the JoongAng Ilbo, and the Dong-a Ilbo.
A. I think of such reasoning as the attempt to present an alibi for his failure. They speak of the failure of his administration as being due to the conservative media and the rebellion of conservative forces. I’m not discounting such factors. However, one must not forget that the power of the state in South Korea is quite strong. The buoyed influence of conservative forces and media reflects the problems inherent in his execution of policy. We must think of why many people remained unconvinced of Roh’s vision despite the many flaws in the reasoning of the conservative media. After all, it is not only the conservative media that criticize the government and the president.
Q. The Blue House speaks much of "sincerity." They said, "President Roh is unsophisticated, but his sincerity or authenticity is not transmitted to the people and thus they do not comprehend his good intentions."
A. It is good for the common man to pursue sincerity. But a politician is judged based not on sincerity, but rather on results. Even if one is totally devoid of sincerity, so long as he contributes to the progress of democracy then he is, politically speaking, not bad. In the political world, the instant one brings up "sincerity" as a reason for one’s political actions, it becomes mere rhetoric and ideology.
Q. In an interview last September with the Kyunghyang Sinmun, you said "the forces of democratization must dissociate themselves from President Roh." What reason did you have for such blistering criticism?
A. I believe that the content of policies and the direction embraced by the Roh administration have strayed from the hopes of the democratization forces. There are problems in their administrative style, through which they undermined the authority of the democratic government, and there are also many flaws in their realization of policies to promote democratic values. [Under the Roh administration] the gap widened between those democracy movement veterans participating in the government and those outside of it. The Roh administration by no means represents all of the democratization forces. One must not put the Roh administration’s failure at the feet of the democratization movement. The forces of democratization must be able to single-handedly create alternative proposals, and must struggle to design a framework to do so.
Q. What attitude should democratic reform forces take in this year’s presidential elections? Some corners of civil society declare they cannot allow the government to fall into conservative hands, and there are corresponding political stirrings. Indeed, such a presumption underlies the argument in favor of a political realignment of the Uri Party.
A. It is both authoritarian and anti-democratic to harp on the possibility of anti-democratic forces taking the helm of government to breed fear and stifle criticism. I think the forces of democratization can criticize the Roh administration while complementing the Grand National Party.
If they are afraid of losing power, then the Uri Party or some new incarnation of it should work to present alternatives. While it is possible to make an appeal based solely upon opposition to another party, it is not desirable to do so. Though some say that a failure to win reelection will be recorded as nothing less than a crime in the history books, it is beyond me to predict what the democratic and historical view of the future is.
Even if reform forces lose in this next election and the opposition party takes over, they can still regroup and achieve victory in the future. Indeed, if they were to do so and to show a greater ability to carry out policy, then it would be a case of democracy functioning correctly. The loss of the reform forces will provide an opportunity to, after some struggle, return to the stage with a stronger party and a broader base.
Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]
