Authoritatian way

• Published Mar 9, 2016 4:36 PM KST
• Updated Mar 9, 2016 4:36 PM KST

By John Burton

Vox, the American news website, recently published an interesting explanation for the rise of Donald Trump as the leading Republican presidential candidate. It concluded that Trump has tapped into a strong but until now latent authoritarian streak within American society and that 44 percent of white Americans have authoritarian leanings.

But how do you discover what people have authoritarian views? After all, few would openly admit in the Land of the Free that they hold extreme political positions such as hating minorities and wanting a strongman as leader.

Stanley Feldman, a political scientist at SUNY Stonybrook in New York, sought to address this problem in the 1990s in trying to identify the personality type that favored authoritarianism by asking questions to respondents about parenting goals to determine whether they prized hierarchy, order and conformity over other more democratic or individualistic values.

The four questions were what those being questioned considered more important for a child to have: 1. independence or respect for elders; 2. obedience or self-reliance; 3.being considerate or being well-behaved; 4.having curiosity or good manners?

What struck me is that if you asked these questions in Korea, the outcome would likely be very clear: children should have respect for elders, be obedient and well-behaved, and have good manners. These answers are the ones that point to an authoritarian personality.

Perhaps it not surprising that such would be the case since these values reflect the neo-Confucianism ideology that Korea embraced so strongly after it was introduced by the founders of the Joseon Dynasty at the end of the 14th century. Similar responses to these questions would also be common in Japan and China, which also have been influenced by neo-Confucianism, which can be best described as the authoritarian version of the more harmonious practices of Confucianism.

Some political scientists argue that social values and beliefs deeply embedded in Asian culture, including Buddhism and Islam, enforce authority patterns in relationshipsin contrast to the protection of civil rights in the West that resulted from the Reformation and the Enlightenment.

It is all the more remarkable then that Asia has made impressive gains in political rights and civil liberties in the last 25 years. This partly reflects the rise of economic freedom resulting from globalization as Asian countries became integrated into the international economy, which encouraged the free flow of information and ideas.

Korea has been regarded as an outstanding example in this regard, being seen as a vibrant democracy with a flourishing media and active civil society groups. But many observers believe that the picture has changed for Korea in terms of democratic governance since the election of Lee Myung-bak in 2007. Korea has since been slipping in the ranks of democratic countries according to measurements on press freedom and other factors produced by such organizations as Freedom House and the Economist Intelligence Unit.

Korea appears to be responding to the same fears that are fueling the rise of Donald Trump as a significant segment of the population in both countries seeks to preserve the status quo against what are perceived as disruptive influences.

In the case of the United States, the embrace of authoritarianism among a disillusioned white middle class has been triggered by fears of physical threats by radical Islamists and destabilizing social changes represented by the rise of minority groups from Hispanics to gays. The anger directed toward these groups is powered by growing income inequality.

In the case of Korea, the physical threat is represented by North Korea while the middle class is grappling with high debt levels when the country appears to be losing its global economic competitiveness to the likes of China and India.

It was nostalgia for the good old days of Park Chung-hee, when economic growth was dynamic, that helped persuade many middle-aged and elderly voters to elect his daughter Park Geun-hye as president in 2013.

Park Geun-hye’s autocratic tendencies in curbing freedoms of speech and assembly while strengthening the powers of intelligence services is supported by a traditional governance structure going back to the Joseon Dynasty where power is concentrated in the hands of a bureaucratic elite. This raises the risk of a democratic rollback in Korea, justified under the claim that such tough measures are needed to protect national security against domestic and foreign enemies.

Whatever happens will depend on what type of leader that Koreans will choose in the next election. Will it be somebody who will emphasize national security concerns or propose big business projects that will be advertised as benefiting the collective good? Or will it be someone who will instead address the needs of the most vulnerable sections of society?

John Burton, a former Korea correspondent for the Financial Times, is now a Seoul-based independent journalist and media consultant. He can be reached at johnburtonft@yahoo.com.