By Andray Abrahamian
A tear gas incident at the National Assembly last month is the logical result of a parliamentary culture that has developed over the last half-century. The question is, will this point spark a change in that culture, or will it be allowed to remain?
Cultural norms develop over time in any social group and parliaments, with their insularity and elitism, are no exception. Americans are often surprised that yelling and shouting is an integral part of the U.K. parliament’s question time.
When Representative Joe Wilson yelled two words ― “You lie!” during Obama’s 2009 address to U.S. Congress on healthcare, it was seen as a scandalous breach of parliamentary conduct.
In the U.K., insults have to be more subtle ― directly calling a prime minister a liar is forbidden and euphemisms like “economical with the truth” or “seems to be forgetting key facts” are commonly used in debate.
Korea has developed a parliamentary culture in which pushing matches are okay. Korean lawmakers by no means have a monopoly on physical violence in parliament, but they do seem to resort to it most often. Perhaps only the Taiwanese, who also regularly get into news-making brawls, outdo them. Not surprisingly, the history of political development in these two countries is remarkably similar.
Violent protests in the Korean parliament were essentially the desperate actions of opposition politicians who had no real power during the era of dictatorships. The system was rigged, the majority was always with the president, and the president almost always got what he wanted.
Forming barricades or getting into shoving matches were ways for opposition politicians to demonstrate to supporters that they were literally doing everything they could.
In 1966, one lawmaker even threw human feces at the speaker to register his disgust. (An act that took at least as much premeditation as Rep. Kim Sun-dong of the minor opposition Democratic Labor Party tossing the tear gas canister.)
What we see today is a vestige of that culture. Though politicians are now more genuinely representative of the polity, opposition lawmakers continue to feel a righteous indignation when the majority is pushing legislation through and they are essentially powerless to stop them.
One key difference now is that it doesn’t resonate with people as it once did. If all politics is a form of theater, the politicians tend to pull their punches when they fight, like WWF wrestlers. No one really seems to want to be seen dishing out a black eye or cut lip.
In contrast, several lawmakers in Ukraine had to go to hospital after fights in 2010 and 2011. On Yeouido, there is usually slapping, throwing of objects, barricading, pushing, pulling and once, a well-executed judo-throw. It all seems like a bit of a performance and it isn’t unusual to hear Koreans discounting its worth with a “bah, they all go out for drinks together afterwards anyway.”
So now, even though most voters don’t demand it, we have a situation in which lawmakers feel some sort of physical confrontation is necessary to demonstrate their efforts. Insufficient sanctions for violence have led to this culture becoming normalized.
Tear gas is the ultimate manifestation of the logic in this culture. For a lawmaker who wants to show he is fighting, but doesn’t want to inflict lasting harm on his colleagues, it is perfect.
It is a unique weapon that seems quite passive, but as anyone who has experienced it will tell you, is often no less painful than being punched or kicked.
The other tools recently brought to battle ― including a chainsaw in 2007 ― have all been used on barricades: one can’t imagine a lawmaker beating another with pipes or hammers.
The gassy chamber did make for dramatic news images last week, however, and now the parliament is faced with a choice. Does it begin punishing politicians who fight? Or does it allow it to continue?
Prosecutors have begun an investigation into the tear-gas incident, but sanctioning Rep. Kim will be difficult as conservatives don’t want to raise the ire of the left anymore than they have already by railroading the FTA ratification through. Nonetheless, if this unique brand of political theater is to end someday, it will take enforced rules to change the culture.
Unfortunately for Korea (or any non-Western country that has parliamentary brawls), international media love to put up picture galleries and videos, with no attempt to explain the background to the fights.
It becomes a way for readers to mock “uncivilized foreigners.” Image-conscious Korea has a good opportunity to make a new set of rules out of this latest incident and evolve what is considered acceptable in parliament.
Andray Abrahamian teaches International Relations at the University of Ulsan and can be reached at andraybaksa@gmail.com.