Prime Minister Roh Moo-hyun
By Oh Young-jin
Assistant Managing Editor
Call it political osmosis, or perhaps more appropriately, a layman's version of the Toynbian challenge-and-response theory.
Whatever the label, equilibrium is the name of the ultimate political game, and winning it requires a balance between a sense of reality and that of imagination. A failure so far to strike this golden mean is a cardinal sin that President Lee Myung-bak is now paying for. In Lee's case, the imbalance is heavily in favor of reality to the point of reaching claustrophobic proportions.
It may be too much to ask Lee, only a little more than four months into his term of five years, to fathom the regret Tony Blair felt at the end of his 13-year ``at the top of the greasy pole'' as leader of the British Labour Party and Prime Minister. Blair said in his May 11, 2007 farewell speech at his political hometown of Sedgefield, ``Politics may be the art of the possible, but at least in life, give the impossible a go.'' Realization is one thing but execution is another, with Blair's 10-year occupancy at 10 Downing producing a checkered record.
However, Lee doesn't have to follow Blair's path. Depending on how he will deal with the bounds of political reality and push the realms of imagination, the 67-year-old self-described ``CEO President'' may turn around his damaged presidency and bring it to a successful conclusion. I feel skeptical but wish him the best of luck because I believe success in his governance coincides with that of the nation.
Let's start with the part where his claustrophobic sense of reality has crimped his political imagination.
Lee filled his Cabinet and Cheong Wa Dae secretariat with people of the same ilk ― property-wealthy congregation buddies, some of whom are suspected of dodging taxes.
With a landslide victory in the December presidential election, he may as well have thought that his way was the people's way. However, it now seems that while most saw it differently, they were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
The candlelit protests were triggered by his decision to open up the domestic market to U.S. beef. People's patience ran out, and tens of thousands of people took to the streets on a daily basis.
Politicians can make mistakes but should, most of the time, display enough political acumen to turn it around to their advantage. Instead, Lee has soldiered on, turning the candlelit protests into a competition of willpower, pitting him against the electorate.
Imagine what would have happened had he had boldly declared he would be the first to eat U.S. beef once imports resumed, or if he had succumbed to the public demand of a new beef deal.
Despite his ``gallant'' resistance to public pressures, Lee has ended up losing at both ends ― a bottom-up overhaul of his Cheong Wa Dae staff and virtual renegotiation of the beef deal. In the process he invited serious questions about his leadership ability.
It is also noteworthy that Lee gave up his grand canal project, one of his key campaign pledges, something that reflected his time as head of a construction company, and built on the credit he received as Seoul Mayor for the building of the Cheonggae Stream in downtown Seoul.
Adding insult to injury are external factors such as a slumping U.S. economy, high oil prices, and inflation, all of which are not helping Lee. His promise to revive the national economy was the biggest draw for voters who ignored his ethical drawbacks and supported him.
Now, the biggest question for Lee is ``how to break this bottleneck and rejuvenate his presidency.''
For this question, Blair can give him a clue or two. In his Sedgefield speech, Blair also said, ``Sometimes, the only way to conquer the pull of power is to set it down.''
I want to make clear that Lee should not take this Blair proposition at face value. He said it as part of his resignation speech from the post of Prime Minister that he had held for 10 years, so it carried a sense of regret for something he should have done but didn't. For Lee, a proper interpretation is that, by letting go of his power, he could seek greater latitude for political maneuvering and set the stage for gaining back the initiative.
In a political sense, it is not uncommon that giving is earning and sharing is strengthening.
For instance, John F. Kennedy stood tall and, in hindsight, emerged as leader of the free world both in name and practice after a speech at the American University on June 10, 1963. In that speech, the young U.S. head of state called on his fellow citizens to reexamine their attitudes toward the Soviet Union and give a verifiable benefit of doubt to their adversaries, ``The wicked flee when no man pursueth.''
Here is my proposition for Lee. It is important to reach out to your political foes and offer something that they can't resist. Start by asking former President Roh Moo-hyun to take the control of the Cabinet as prime minister and let him share the burden of governing this country.
Even as I am writing this, I am keenly aware that a fracas is under way between the current and former occupants of Cheong Wa Dae over the disposition of presidential records during Roh's tenure. I also know of the many angry words the two sides traded in the lead-up to Lee's election.
But France has done this experimental political sharing of leadership in the form of ``cohabitation.'' Why not us? This French espirit de corps of two opposing political ideologies may sound oxymoronic and it is widely believed that its accidental occurrences are attributable to a flaw in the French constitution. Let's give this so called mistake a try. Who knows, we might be pleasantly surprised.