Conservatives vs. progressives

By Andrei Lankov

The South Korean presidential elections are over. To the surprise of few, the country emerged deeply and sharply divided between two camps ― self-described as "progressives" and ‘conservatives'. It was the former that claimed victory, though with far below the majority of votes cast.

These political titles are misleading for many Westerners eager to connect Korean politics to similar Western ideology and agendas. In actuality, however, the agenda and worldview of Korean "conservatives" are quite different from that of, say, the American GOP, and Korean ‘progressives' ignore many issues which the British Labour or American Democrats would consider as core values.

So, what are the issues that are, essentially, non-issues in present-day Korean politics? Perhaps, one should start with the usual American duo of abortion and immigration.

Abortion is technically banned in South Korea, but this is largely ignored. With the exception of a small number of religious devotees, most Koreans simply do not see much problem with abortion, which can be sought relatively inexpensively.

Migration exists in Korea, but the structures of Korean society are such that it makes it difficult or even impossible for a majority of immigrants to stay in the country for extended periods of time. A typical migrant worker can reasonably expect to work just a couple of years before returning to his or her home country. Given the low unemployment rate, these laborers are not seen as competitors even by unskilled South Koreans – most of them do the jobs the locals are unwilling to do anyway. Additionally, these immigrants are not particularly visible in Korea, as most of them live in and around industrial or agricultural areas, away from the dense urban areas that most Koreans call home.

For a time, the conservatives-vs-progressive debate in South Korea used to center on economics and social policy. Predictably, progressives favored larger social spending and redistribution of wealth. Many of them also despised the giant chaebol which for decades have dominated the South Korean economy, calling for tough regulations and/or blowing them up into smaller firms. Conservatives, on the other hand, were on balance much stronger defenders of laissez faire economics and see the chaebol as necessary engines of growth and prosperity that propelled the country into first-world status.

However, in the last decade or so, the differences between these two groups have become much less pronounced. Conservatives increasingly accept the need for a significant increase in welfare spending (especially as the demographic skews older), while the progressives have lost much of their earlier mistrust of the market economy, and are willing to make peace – or, at least, a truce – with modern free market institutions. This means that debates on economics and welfare, while still a part of the political discourse, have lost much of their earlier ardor. A sort of consensus is slowly emerging.

If economics and social safety nets are less charged, what are the issues that ratchet up Korean political sensibilities and emotions? There are two topics that fit this profile: the evaluation of modern Korean history, especially on the period of military rule, and, to a lesser degree, attitudes on foreign policy and relations with North Korea.

From its formal foundation in 1948 and lasting until 1987 South Korea was ruled by authoritarian strongmen. This was a period of political repression and gross human rights violations, but also an era that saw record-breaking economic growth and unprecedented increases of living standards.

The conservatives, while grudgingly acknowledging that human rights violations did take place, emphasize the (impressive) economic achievement of the period, while progressives often ignore the so-called Miracle on the Han River of 1961-1987 completely and tend to talk only about the brutality of the dictators. The question of how the period should be remembered and, especially, presented in official records and textbooks is the topic of heated debates.

The other issue that ignites political emotions are attitudes of the United States. The conservatives are very pro-American and see alliance with the U.S. as the unshakeable foundation of ROK foreign policy, while the progressives are more suspicious of the U.S. and would like to keep some distance from Washington, and have less reservations of maneuvering between – or oscillating back and forth – between China and the U.S.

A final issue with sharp divides in South Korea is what to do about the North. The conservatives are hawks that see North Korea as an existential security threat to be dealt with accordingly, while progressives are often dovish and tend to see the North as misunderstood brothers, favoring cooperation, unilateral concessions and aid – even though their enthusiasm for such policies has considerably cooled since the early 2000s.

One can see that over the last twenty years or so the differences between South Korea's two major political forces has diminished significantly. Political debates are increasingly dominated by issues of great symbolic importance, but little actual significance. This may be a sign of progress; indeed, the South Korean political discourse largely resembles most other advanced democracies.

Andrei Lankov was born in St. Petersburg, Russia, and teaches at Kookmin University in Seoul. Reach him at anlankov@yahoo.com.