Manila Events Stir Politics in South Korea

In a cartoon that appeared recently in a newspaper here, a man complained to his wife that he was cold and asked, “When will spring ever come?”

“Don’t worry,” she replied. “It’s already warm down south.”

Readers had little difficulty figuring out that the cartoon was about the change of political climate in the Philippines, where the autocratic President Ferdinand E. Marcos was driven from power last month.

But the cartoon also said something about the changing climate in South Korea, where the press rarely prints anything without the government’s approval.

The government of President Chun Doo Hwan has taken pains to deny the existence of any similarity between the Philippines and South Korea, but the pace of political activity here has suddenly quickened since Marcos’ downfall. The government, which had been unwilling to discuss any changes in the constitution that would lead to more democratization, is at least talking about such a possibility--but not until 1989.

The opposition has responded with vigor. A number of groups that had been fiercely independent have now joined forces in a campaign aimed at revising the constitution so as to permit direct presidential elections.

Chun, a former army general, is president by virtue of an indirect election in 1981, not long after the internal military coup that helped bring him to power.

In the last five years, South Korea’s economy has improved and living standards have risen, but Chun has not been a popular president. He has not been able to shake off the stigma of 1980, when troops were sent into the southwestern city of Kwangju to put down an uprising. Almost 200 people were killed.

In an attempt to distance himself from his predecessor, Park Chung Hee, who by revising the constitution managed to stay in power for 18 years, Chun has promised to step down after a single seven-year term.

Opposition politicians, emboldened by their surprising success in last year’s election for the National Assembly, want to make sure that Chun’s successor is chosen directly by the people. Under the present indirect system, the president is chosen by the 5,200 members of an electoral college, and the opposition has little chance at winning the top job.

Political Signs Grow

Among other straws in the wind:

--On Feb. 24, Chun had lunch with leading opposition politicians, and afterward the police cordon that had surrounded the headquarters of the principal opposition party, the New Korea Democratic Party, was removed. The opposition had been involved in a campaign to get signatures on a petition calling for direct elections, and the government had taken the position that this was illegal because it tended to promote social disorder. About 200 people had been placed under house arrest for this activity.

--Kim Dae Jung, South Korea’s leading dissident, who won 46% of the popular vote in South Korea’s last direct presidential election 15 years ago, says he will challenge the government by addressing a rally Sunday to gather signatures on a petition calling for direct elections. Kim, who in 1980 was sentenced to death for anti-state activities, has been ordered to take no active part in politics. When he returned from exile in the United States last year, he was placed under house arrest.

--Students, whose demonstrations have long been considered a barometer of political discontent, have been involved increasingly in clashes with police. About 200 students have been jailed so far this year, and bookstores offering political material have been closed.

--Last week, politicians took to the streets of Seoul and paraded from an auditorium to the headquarters of the New Korea Democratic Party. Kim Young Sam, an opposition politician considered more moderate than Kim Dae Jung, delivered a stinging attack on “dictatorships.”

Government Legitimacy

Political observers warn that the push for democratization cannot continue without touching on the basic problem of the Chun government--its legitimacy. A Western diplomat said the opposition “could become blinded by the light of the Philippines, and the government could respond with an iron hand to restore order.”

For the time being, events in the Philippines are serving as a yardstick for many Koreans, a touchstone. As another diplomat put it, “We have a game in Korean society today, and it consists of comparing the Philippines to this country.”

Some South Koreans who have seen their country prosper in the past two decades under military-dominated governments resent the comparison to the Philippines.

“Until a few weeks ago Americans were saying we will be a second Japan,” said Chung Sun Ho, a ruling party politician, who before entering politics played a leading role in the founding of the Korean color TV industry. “Now Americans are saying we are a second Philippines.”

Others note that South Korea was probably more like the Philippines 25 years ago than it is today.

Rhee Was Forced Out

Indeed, Syngman Rhee, a former South Korean president whose rule was marked by corruption and economic stagnation, was forced from power in 1960 under conditions similar to the Marcos affair. Like Marcos, Rhee had attempted to prolong his rule with an election marred by violence and fraud.

As in Manila, ordinary people--most of them students--staged an unarmed uprising. Just as in Marcos’ case, the United States allowed the deposed dictator to find refuge in Hawaii.

Today, the similarities are no longer so clear-cut.

Corruption has been a serious problem for both the Philippines and South Korea, but here, local wits say, even crooks are patriotic enough to leave their loot at home. As one foreign businessman put it, “Taking bribes may be OK, but putting the money into a foreign bank is just not done.”

Corruption remains a serious enough problem in South Korea for the government to have contemplated introducing the death penalty for serious cases.

While both countries have financed their economic growth with foreign loans, bankers are still lining up to lend money to South Korea--already in debt nearly $50 billion--while most have suspended credit to the Philippines, whose foreign debt totals $26.5 billion. The reason for South Korea’s favored status: Economists estimated that the country’s growth rate could go as high as 9% in 1986, thanks to falling oil prices and declining interest rates. The Philippines’ gross national product, on the other hand, has actually declined for two consecutive years.

Armed Forces Contrast

Perhaps the greatest contrast, however, is in the armed forces of the two countries. The Philippine military forces had a reputation of being undisciplined and corrupt; units called “lost commands” rented themselves out to local strongmen to act as enforcers and bodyguards.

In South Korea, where the populace lives in constant fear of an attack from Communist North Korea, the army is disciplined and respected. But, unlike in the Philippines, where the tradition of civilian control has been maintained, here army generals have seized power twice.

The South Korean government is dominated by military men (albeit in civilian clothes). Two-thirds of Chun’s Cabinet are retired officers; paramilitary police stand permanent guard in front of buildings housing newspapers or church groups, and a catch-all national security law is often used to muffle dissent. Just how the military would act in the face of a popular uprising is not clear.

In the game of comparisons with the Philippines, the United States has become an important if passive participant. Kim Dae Jung says he is not only encouraged by what has happened in the Philippines but also by what he sees as a change in American policy toward dictatorships.

U.S. Self-Interest Seen

“President Reagan may be a conservative,” Kim said in an interview, “but he is a pragmatist, too. America could not help supporting the majority in the Philippines. For the sake of U.S. self-interest, Reagan cannot help supporting democracy in foreign countries.”

In recent days, the South Korean government has promised to revise the constitution in 1989, arguing that there can be no such reform until after the Asian Games here this year and the Summer Olympics, also here, in 1988.

“Isn’t it reasonable for the government to ask for a political moratorium until 1989?” an official spokesman said.

In this view, vigilance is more necessary than ever because Communist North Korea can be expected to try to disrupt the games. President Chun warned last week that the next few months will be particularly dangerous, and office workers have taken to gathering in front of their buildings with mass-produced placards calling for “order” and “security.”

Pride Over Games

The government evidently hopes that the Asian Games and the Olympics will make the people proud of Chun for having brought these events to a country that not long ago was torn by partition and war, and that they will put less emphasis on constitutional reform.

But the promise to reform the constitution in 1989, just a year after the presidential elections, has raised doubts among the opposition about how sincere Chun is in his promise to serve only one term. For a new constitution could mean new elections, and that, as the opposition sees it, could mean the return of Chun.

The promise to revise the constitution later has drawn the fire of Seoul’s Cardinal Stephen Kim, who said in a sermon: “If one agrees that the constitution has to be revised, why wait to revise it? Why not change it as soon as possible?”

Cardinal’s Comparisons

The cardinal has not spoken out often in this way. According to Koreans, he has been more reluctant than church leaders elsewhere to involve himself in temporal matters. Yet he also referred indirectly to human rights abuses by the Chun government, saying:

“Those who say our country is different from the Philippines must prove that there is no nepotism here, no gap between rich and poor, no concentration of wealth, no torture, no illegal arrest and no suppression of human rights.”

A prominent Protestant minister who is active in the human rights campaign notes that the more prosperous Koreans become, the more they want to run their own affairs.

“Government people think in paternalistic ways,” he said. “They say, ‘We do all these good things for you, so support us.’ But in reality the more people have, the more democracy they want.”