By Jon Huer
Korea Times Columnist
As predicted by many, Roh Moo-hyun left a presidency of endless turmoil and conflicts, anecdotes and tales, both believable and incredulous, yet always human and often humane, certainly interesting and enduring.
This man of destiny killed himself Saturday by throwing himself off the rock cliff on which he had played in his youthful days.
He had been summoned to the prosecution for bribe taking and many others, including his wife and other members of his family, had also been interrogated or imprisoned already.
It was reported that the prosecution was preparing to determine the level of charges against the former President.
Many believed that it was a foregone conclusion that charges would be brought against him and his conviction and imprisonment would almost certainly follow.
Thus surrounded by the long arms of the law, Roh did the best he could.
He attempted to save his honor, his legacy and his family from further encroachment by ending his own life.
He chose an exit from this world on his own will and thus left a story as tragic as any Greek tragedy and as tumultuous as any chapter among Plutarch's heroes.
By choosing his own exit time, place and lines, Roh preserved for posterity an image largely according to his own making.
Koreans will remember less of his sordid bribery taking or his inelegant words and behavior, but more of the startling, yet so Korean method of throwing himself off the cliff, as if he was making one last gesture of defiance and proclamation that he was a man of his own destiny.
The future historians and dramatists will retell this story of bravura and daring, of gut-wrenching courage and heart-stopping self-determination, time and again.
As of now, the nation, foe or friend, mourns him for various reasons, and marvels that this man of great and terrible presence in Korea's modern history is no more among the living.
Yet, in death, as in life, Roh is casting a giant shadow across all that is Korea's heart, mind and soul.
As one who thought of Roh as a breath of fresh air upon his winning the presidency, I have done some sociological soul searching myself to join the plethora of commentators to explain his presidency. His life and times, reflected in the mood of chaos in all dimensions of life in Korea, represented not just Roh's presidency, but that of his ``386" followers as well as that of Korea itself.
The most obvious perception of Roh's tenure, during the peak of his troubles as it is now, is that the President's policies, directions, or wishes were hopelessly confusing and confused. What causes this perception, hence Roh's troublesome record?
In agreement with most political observers, I believe that Roh's trouble was deeply rooted in the simple fact that he was made up of two contradictory impulses. One was his desire to be ``rational-progressive'' and the other was his inner makeup that is ``emotional-nationalistic."
Under normal circumstances, the two impulses are displayed in two opposite political ideologies and parties, generally as ``liberal" and ``conservative." Progressivism variously encourages internationalism, rational standards and egalitarian reform, among other things. Emotional-nationalism, on the other hand, tends to express itself in authoritarianism, emotionalism, personalism, vengefulness and mean-spiritedness.
To put this contradiction in a nutshell, Roh is the most ``progressive" of all the presidents Korea has ever had.
But at the same time he is also the most ``emotional-nationalistic'' of all presidents. To illustrate the matter more dramatically, consider Park Chung-hee, the one-time president-dictator and founder of industrial Korea, as the nemesis of Roh in all things political and personal.
At first, Park conjures up ``old Korea," while Roh embodies ``new Korea.''
But, upon reconsideration, what can easily emerge from the Park-Roh contrast is that Park seemed to be by far the more ``progressive" and ``globally" minded leader.
As much as Park wielded his power in a personal dictatorial style, he seemed to be much less a ``personal-emotional" leader than Roh. In that sense, oddly enough, Roh, the personification of progressivism in Korea, was more atavistically Korean than Park ever was.
The conflicting forces between rationalism and emotionalism drove Roh in a direction that suggested vengefulness (his constant battle with the press), emotionalism (his verbal lashings that were coarse and mean-spirited), personalism (too much reliance on himself as the ultimate judge of things) and authoritarianism (his reluctance to diffuse power).
This sort of conflict was also true of the so-called ``386 generation'' that was the basis of Roh's support in Korea. Contrary to their demographic representation, the younger generation was far more emotional-nationalistic, and therefore more backward looking, than the older, more conservative Koreans, of which the present President Lee is a representative.
Although they were technology-savvy and could easily immerse in contemporary culture, they seemed to be more narrow-minded and emotional ``Korea-firsters'' than their reputedly backward elders.
As long as President Roh failed to recognize the emotional basis of his inner conflict, his tenure continued to be marked by drift and confusion.
Roh was a man of immense self-confidence with a sense of destiny about him.
His presidency was not simply an exercise of political processes conferring him the title and job of being Korea's President: It was a confirmation of his own historical role for Korea and its people. In short, it was his personal Destiny and Triumph. From this perspective, he identified himself with the Nation of Korea itself; he WAS Korea, and Korea WAS Roh Moo-hyun. As such, the monies he took could NOT have been bribes. They were part of what Korea owed him.
He gave his whole life to Korea and Korea's well being, and for his peace of retired life he was ENTITLED to the funds. Hence the complete absence of any sense of humility about the criminal charges.
It is unlikely that he felt guilty about any of the legal violations or wrongdoings. He killed himself out of shame more than guilt, out of honor more than escape from the law.
He exited from this life to protect his legacies and his personal monuments, not to extricate himself from the criminal-legal punishments.
Ironically, of all the past and present presidents, Roh was the ONLY President who took his presidency PERSONALLY although Park comes close.
Everything about his presidential life and thoughts were personal and Roh-based. So little of his decision-making had any governmental-bureaucratic-procedural air about it.
Roh made decisions and pronouncements from his personal point of view and framework about life and destiny. While he was a lawyer himself, he rarely thought of matters in legal-rational terms, as he was inclined to think personally and emotionally.
In memoriam, his life and times were about Roh Moo Hyun, the person, the man, more than his philosophy or his policy, or even his successor or successor government.
It was almost always Roh himself at the center of all things. Having hailed from a desperately poor family, he thought of life as a constant struggle between principles, such as good and evil, not compromises.
Now he has left this world where small men cling to their smaller lives and aspirations as the last of those larger-than-life heroes.
May his soul rest in peace!
The writer teaches sociology at the University of Maryland University College, and can be reached at jonhuer@hotmail.com.