This is a Q&A with Cho Gab-je, the author of ``Spit on My Grave,’’ a 13-volume biography on former President Park Chung-hee. ― ED.
Where, in your opinion, would Korea be today without Park Chung-hee?
Korea would be in the same place as Thailand or Malaysia. Per capita income would be half what it is today and we wouldn’t have the big companies which have helped make Korea what it is.
Was Park a typical soldier of his day? In other words, would a military coup by another general have produced the same result?
Park and fellow coup-maker Kim Jong-pil, who was his niece’s husband, were not typical. In terms of intelligence, integrity and sense of purpose, they were way ahead of their peers. Park was different from other soldiers of his day in that he was a revolutionary and a visionary. He had a clear vision. We can say that Korea was very fortunate that it was they who engineered the takeover. They were men of good character and not dictatorial. That, and the fact that people welcomed their intervention as necessary for social order, explains why their coup in 1961 was bloodless.
What was his vision?
I believe he envisaged a unified Korea ultimately as a social democracy. He said that as Korea lacked the conditions and institutions to support democracy, its development had to come step by step, first economic growth, then democratization, then re-unification. I think he saw his historic role as building the country’s economic foundations.
You once said that Park was in some ways a communist. Can you explain this?
He was unfamiliar with their ideology, but he emotionally sympathized with the communists. That was before the Korean War and at that time people only knew the slogans the communists used about equality, peace and justice.
Park is criticized for repression. Do you think he could have been more democratic?
A. Even though I had personal experience of the heavy-handedness of his rule when I was ousted from my newspaper for writing about the Korean CIA, I consider the repression minimal when measured in historical terms. Park himself never ordered any political assassinations. In that regard, it compares well with other countries which experienced similar revolutionary social and political change, such as Taiwan and Singapore, or Great Britain under Oliver Cromwell. I think the bloodless nature of the coup is an important factor here. Had people been killed in 1961, the leadership would have had to enforce far stronger repressive measures to maintain power.
If he hadn’t been assassinated, do you think he would still be in power today?
I don’t think so. From a purely political perspective, his departure was timely. He was tired by that time. The old discipline and fighting spirit was weaker and he was failing to manage his inner circle, appointing inadequate people to top positions.
Did the Korean people know the real Park Chung-hee? Was the impression people had of him an accurate one?
To the people, Park was a remote and feared leader. His bodyguards and the Korean CIA protected him and his image. So our view of him came from them. When I started looking into his life in the 1980s, I found a considerable gap between this image and the real man
What did you discover?
Park was a remarkably humble man who lived in a very simple way. He was a balanced character. He was well read and had a sense of history. He was also a master of creating the systems needed to implement his vision. He organized the bureaucracy in a way that maximized people’s abilities.
Did anything surprise you?
Park’s son told me that his father loved living things. He loved trees. He loved dogs. And I think he loved people. I had thought of him as a man with strong willpower who pushed his agenda. Now, I think the driving force was love and sympathy for poor people. Intellectuals in the city like me didn’t see this, but I think rural Koreans felt this from him. They are the ones who were really grateful to Park Chung-hee. But I think the whole country should be.