Seoul Cannot Go Halfway on Democracy

South Korean politics is very democratic in that Western-style elections are conducted peacefully, and freedom of the press, of political assembly and expression are guaranteed. However, South Korean politics is very undemocratic in several ways: an imperial presidency still prevails, the National Assembly is very much under the president’s tight control, and the press censors itself. Further, the freedom of political assembly and expression is often violent.

South Korean presidential authority is comparable to the king’s authority during the old dynasties. I attended a ceremony for firefighters in Seoul in November 1999. After President Kim Dae Jung delivered his congratulatory speech, he viewed modern fire prevention and control equipment and facilities in the lobby for 30 minutes. We invited guests, who already had gone through security checks, could not leave the auditorium because of Kim’s visit to the lobby. I could not believe it in this modern age.

The South Korean president still has his own investigative team, even though the attorney general and police are already under his control. The investigative team recently was involved in illegal wrongdoing, but it still exists. The Korean people have been used to the operation of the team for so long that no one questions its legitimacy. Unbelievably, the press is quiet on this issue, too.

In my view, the press does not want to step on the imperial presidency. No newspaper or electronic media have reported the amounts of presidential campaign money over the years. There is no honest reporting of how much and where the money was spent by presidential candidates or where the money came from. This has been true since democracy came to South Korea in 1987.

The South Korean National Assembly is made up of almost 300 members. However, the president completely controls the ruling party members. The president’s budget is approved in a couple of days by the National Assembly without serious discussion. Congressional budget review in the U.S. is too long, but in South Korea it is too short. There are no checks and balances between the executive and legislative powers.

The people are familiar with organized, violent street demonstrations against past authoritarian military governments. Yet as recently as this past December, workers, farmers and students staged street demonstrations over a labor union dispute. They attacked the police and destroyed a car. Labor-management disputes often end up in a violent confrontation. Third-party (government) intervention between labor and management is useless because labor will not accept it. These violent acts cannot help democracy or law and order.

Periodic elections, freedom of the press and freedom of political expression are not enough to measure Korean democracy. There are other questions that must be asked: How does the president act? Is he imperialistic? How does the press report? How much reporting is self-censored? How is the expression of political discontent shown? President Kim is attempting meaningful political reform, but even he did not report his political money clearly to the public. Kim announced the formation of the Millennium Democratic Party on Jan. 20. Why? The Korean president is limited to one five-year term. In the short term, Kim hopes the new political party can triumph in the National Assembly elections in April. In the long term, he hopes to change the constitution so the government is run by a cabinet, not the president. A former authoritarian president tried the same thing in the early ‘80s. Therefore, the people see the same old politics.

Kim has been a freedom fighter for all his political career. Yet when I see him in Seoul, he is an imperial president. This is probably because the office of the South Korean president is imperialistic, and that must change.

Political change is going on in South Korea. A coalition of civic organizations has drawn up a list of corrupt and undesirable politicians, including Prime Minister Kim Jong Pil--who just stepped down from the Kim Dae Jung Cabinet--and has been campaigning against them in the rounds leading up to the April National Assembly elections. However, this campaign did not aim at the imperial president. Who is free from the past politics in South Korea?