Lee, Park and Lula

By Choi Sung-jin

Three former presidents are in jail now ― two in South Korea and one in Brazil.

There are similarities and dissimilarities between Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye on the one hand, and Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on the other.

All three underwent or are undergoing trials on suspicion of corruption during their tenure. These ex-presidents commonly say all the charges against them are trumped-up and amount to nothing more than political vendettas plotted by their political opponents who are currently in power. Their supporters are vehemently protesting the political persecution of their idols.

The similarities, albeit ostensible, end there.

Lee and Park, both conservative leaders, are being held to account by their progressive opponents while leftist Lula is being accused by his rightist foes. The former Brazilian president could win in the next election if he were free as he enjoys support from one-third of voters. The two ex-Korean leaders would have no such chance even if they were allowed to run. Park has only tens of thousands of ultra-rightist, anti-communist followers and Lee has just a handful of sympathizers.

Lula is suspected of taking an apartment and other bribes of relatively smaller amounts. According to media reports, Park extorted tens of billions of won, and Lee, at least 10 times more than Park.

The biggest difference is their legacy while in office. The former leader in the largest Latin American country lifted 20 million people out of poverty with various social programs. “If Lula stole, at least he gave some of it to the people,” the Washington Post quoted a Brazilian steelworker as saying. Little wonder former U.S. President Barack Obama called Lula “the world's most popular politician.”

During the nine-year-long tenure of Park and Lee, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer in Korea. Park was even accused of refusing to communicate not just with her people but with members of her Cabinet. She lived in Cheong Wa Dae like a queen surrounded by attendants and confidants. The daughter of general-turned-president, Park Chung-hee, did not even bother to come out of her bedroom while more than 300 people were drowning in a sinking ferry with most of them being high school students.

Lee, who ran a large construction company before jumping into politics, poured more than 20 trillion won of taxpayers' money into refurbishing the nation's four largest rivers, destroying the environment and stripping numerous farmers of their land. He also wasted a similar amount on abortive overseas resources development projects. In the process, his unqualified cronies embezzled huge amounts of public funds, part of which are presumed to have ended up in Lee's private coffers. Lee is also blamed for the tragic deaths of squatters who protested against the urban redevelopment project in Yongsan, Seoul, in the course of a SWAT-style crackdown.

Granted, not all of the charges leveled against Lee and Park by prosecutors may be true, and some of them may not be punishable because of a lack of hard evidence. However, charges that have all ready been proven are enough to put them in prison for decades, given the law is applied equally to all people regardless of their status and former positions.

Two former liberal presidents ― Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun ― also had to apologize to the people for corruption involving their family members and aides. Aside from their far smaller bribes, these two former leaders did not commit irregularities themselves. Park and Lee told family-controlled conglomerates to donate money to their relatives and confidants. All corruption cannot be the same with the graveness of criminality varying widely.

Of course, the punishment of individual leaders cannot cure the “Korean Disease” completely. The fact that all former presidents in modern Korea have not been free from one disgraceful irregularity or another indicates there is a severe defect in the nation's “imperial” presidential system. The ongoing debate about constitutional amendment should tackle this problem without fail.

There is also the political awareness of both the elite and ordinary people. According to Michael Oakeshott, a British philosopher and political scientist in the 20th century, the nature of a country's politics relies on “social imagery” of the governing and the governed.

A country's political landscape is decided depending on whether its rulers and people regard their country as a business entity that pursues a single purpose or see it as the association of equal citizens united in a common legal system. Since the 17th century, European states have shifted from business associations to citizens' associations as democracy developed.

Lee's governing style showed he regarded the state as a business corporation, seeking economic growth by all means, including random ones, and ignored all social evils occurring in its course. Park saw the state as an inherited fortune of sorts belonging to royal families. The problem is some Koreans still think of themselves as little more than the employees of such authoritarian rulers or vassals of monarchal families.

The “Candlelight Revolution” of late 2016 was the process in which a majority of Koreans awoke from the pre-modern political consciousness and decided to turn their nation into an association of democratic, self-reliant citizens.

The two former South Korean presidents must be held to account if for no other reason than developing this country's young democracy. Lula was far better than Lee and Park. Koreans should no longer be forced to choose relatively good corruption from entirely bad ones.

Choi Sung-jin is a Korea Times columnist. Contact him at choisj1955@naver.com.