Candlelight Revisited
By Sah Dong-seok
Deputy Managing Editor
A year ago, downtown Seoul streets were boiling with violent demonstrations. Tens of thousands of citizens turned out in protest against the bungled U.S. beef talks that stemmed mainly from the greed of the nascent Lee Myung-bak administration.
South Korea and the United States hurriedly concluded their protracted talks to resume imports of American beef in mid-April ahead of their bilateral summit in Washington. At first, the public opinion was not that bad, given the necessity to open the local beef market at an earlier date in consideration of the sooner ratification of the bilateral free trade agreement. But the mood went from bad to worse as MBC, one of the nation's three nationwide broadcasters, aired an investigative program that exaggerated the health risks of mad cow disease associated with American beef.
On May 2, citizens, including young students who feared that their favorite idol singers might die from the disease, held their first rally at Cheonggye Plaza in central Seoul that had been created by President Lee Myung-bak when he served as Seoul mayor. The protests spread nationwide amid escalating violence, turning Seoul into a place without law and order for nearly 100 days ― virtually a state of anarchy.
Now, one year on, it's appalling just to think of the candlelight madness. Of course, we can't deny that last year's candlelight vigils began as a voluntary resistance movement protesting the government's poor and premature negotiations with the United States, indifference to people's rights to health and poor absorption of public opinion in the implementation of policies.
A year later, views on the vigils are poles apart along ideological lines, as we have often seen. Leftists see it as a torchlight that brought to light the darkness of the era since the inception of the new conservative government, linking the protests to the 1987 pro-democracy movement that opened a de facto democratic system in South Korea. They claim that the protests were a completely different type of resistance against political forces that had tried to violate the sovereignty and destroy communities, terming the vigils as the nation's first movement that capitalized on people's livelihoods such as health, education, medical services, tax and urban development.
Rightists admit the purity in the early stage of the candlelight protests but claim that some left-leaning media outlets, including broadcasters and Web portals, made incorrect, inflammatory and irresponsible reports on the health risks of the mad cow disease, which caused the masses to take to the streets. As anti-U.S. leftists took the initiative, the protests were spoiled amid escalating violence, and those who had been dissatisfied with the outcome of the presidential election in December 2007 also joined in, they say.
Personally, I believe that the candlelight protests went too far. Science was ignored and ideology prevailed. In fact, many pro-North Korea and anti-U.S. activists marred the peaceful protests by setting off the chain of violence, causing ordinary people to later quit.
Losses from the candlelight vigils were enormous. According to the Korea Economic Research Institute (KERI), the social cost from what leftists called ``street democracy'' amounted to about 3.7 trillion won ― 0.4 percent of the 2007 gross domestic product. The candlelight vigils dealt a fatal blow to the new administration and President Lee Myung-bak is still staggering after losing his trademark self-confidence.
Still, the ghost of mad cow disease lingers everywhere. As things stand now, any similar incident could spark an explosive situation. These potential landmines include a grand canal, economic crisis, privatization of medical services and KORUS FTA, just to name a few. The violent protests Friday and Saturday that erupted on the occasion of Labor Day and the first anniversary of the candlelight vigils show that activists are still eager to re-ignite it at any time. Some left-leaning media outlets even openly call for a second phase of the vigils, opposing every government policy.
Although the safety of American beef has not been questioned over the past year, a recent survey of 1,000 people conducted by the leftist Hankyoreh daily showed that 56 percent of those polled still worried about U.S. beef. What is relieving is that the same poll found that 57 percent replied that they won't take part in the candlelight vigils should the same situation unfold.
So what then can we learn from last year's vigils? More than anything else, the government should be thorough in establishing and implementing policies. Given that the escalation of the protests resulted from the government's failure in negotiations with the United States, it would not be too much if we ask policymakers to be more prudent and sacrificial.
The majority of citizens who joined the candlelight protests out of pure concern about health were hoaxed by leftists who pursued political gains. What is worrisome is that the specter of populism will continue to haunt the nation.