In an effort to address the challenges facing South Korea since its democratization in 1987, the East Asia Institute (EAI) has proposed new institutional strategies for the desirable role, power, and responsibility of the president through the projects The Presidency in Korea in 2002 and Presidential Transitions in Korea in 2007. Today, the rapid growth of social networking technologies creates new dynamics which requires South Korea to meet the demands for increased political participation and interactive communication.
One of the main reasons for the failings of previous administrations in South Korea is the president himself. Their only focus was on being elected to the extent that they did not have any concrete vision or plan on what to do after they won. Although a president should always prioritize the most pressing issues, former presidents in South Korea have often not completed this basic task. Instead, presidents have served their terms in office being almost wholly dependent on government officials.
Overcome the Legacy of Authoritarianism
Despite the last twenty-five years of democracy in South Korea, the country still has not been able to overcome the socio-economic conflicts that built-up under the military dictatorships of the past. This is due to the fact that former presidents have all stuck to the economic growth strategy forged under the Park Chung-hee dictatorship. The Asian Financial Crisis was the perfect opportunity to change South Korea’s distorted economic structure, however the Kim Dae-jung administration choose the easy way out and saved the chaebols or conglomerates by providing them with public funds. These measures ultimately resulted in strengthening the power of the chaebols. The Roh Moo-hyun administration acted in a similar way. Because the administration came to power with little preparation, the economic policies were implemented based on ideas from the chaebol-affiliated research institutes. Ironically, over the past ten years of progressive administrations, the power of the chaebols has grown stronger and the polarization in society has worsened. As yet presidents in South Korea have been unable to break away from Park Chung-hee’s economic model of relying upon growth.
South Korea has the second worst case of wealth distribution after the United States. The economic policies of previous governments have resulted in great polarization in society. As the Kim Yong-sam administration pursued political democratization, the government’s power weakened while the influence of the chaebols became stronger. This led to the nation’s policy function being dominated by the power of the markets due to relaxation of regulations, opening of markets, and a weakening of regulatory oversight. In particular, the growing dependency on political funds from the chaebols has had a major effect on the way politics is conducted. The legislation process has also been similarly affected by increased lobbying from the chaebols. Their economic power has grown too big and now dominates every facet of society. If the government does not control this expansion of economic power, the polarization within society will only become worse. As the chaebols are often at the source of conflict and division within society, measures must be adopted to control their all-powerful influence. However, the human instinct to be greedy makes this a difficult challenge to address. The solution is for the visible hand of the government to do what the invisible hand of the markets cannot do. Economic democracy is about providing an institutional strategy to regulate excess greed. In the process of making progress with economic democracy, opposing economic forces will resist strongly. Thus, a president will need the trust of the people in order to push through such change. President Roh Moo-hyun correctly recognized the situation of the time, and placed tackling economic polarization and enhancing social integration as one of his main policies. However, despite it being at the top of his agenda, he was unable to achieve any success. This is due to the way that he did not create any specific polices and was also not properly prepared for the tasks at hand. In this sense, a president must be prepared to have a clear vision for economic democracy and must also possess specific policy capabilities.
Recently there has been a lot of support for making a constitutional amendment to the current five-year, single-term system. However, this does not address the problem and there is no guarantee that a president can succeed with a four-year, two-term presidential system. In the current political environment, if the system changes to a two-term presidency the first four years will only serve the function of preparing a president for his or her second term. If a president makes effective preparations for his or her policies and selects the right personnel, then the current single-term system is more than sufficient time. Success will certainly be guaranteed if the president proposes an agenda that is able to meet the challenges of the time and win the people’s trust.
Discussants |