Aftermath of Demise
Governing Camp Must Read Deep Into Public Mind-set
For the time being, most Koreans will be expressing deep sorrow for the tragic death of former President Roh Moo-hyun; that much should be the minimal courtesy to any deceased person, let alone an ex-head of state.
Humans beings, however, are forgetful animals, and there will be a post mortem ― not literal of course ― of not just the merits and demerits of the late leader but the very way he ended his own life, and that may start not long after the funeral scheduled for Friday. Even now, some conservatives are not hiding ― mostly in private but a few of them in public ― their complaints about the posthumous treatment of Roh.
Opponents criticize him for being irresponsible by taking the bribery scandal to the grave with him, or tactical even at the moment of death by seeking a final-round turnaround.
We agree that suicide should not be glorified under any circumstances nor can death justify everything, much less pardon a sin. Also, the criteria of integrity should be absolute, not relative, particularly for one who built his governing philosophy on a crusade against corruption.
What we cannot understand, however, is how these conservatives can apply extremely different standards on the same issue, depending on the ideological standing of the accused. Have they ever taken issue with the two general-turned-presidents who took away a hundred times more money from businesses, and still are quite well off, as if nothing had happened? A commentator even said Roh should have learned from their ``unyielding minds.''
Sadder still were the attempts of these conservatives, including the incumbent administration, to vilify ― and nullify ― not just most of Roh's accomplishments but all the positive values he stood for, namely putting an the end to authoritarian rule, the severance of political-business collusion and the betterment of inter-Korean relations.
It must not have been a coincidence that the prosecution investigation into Roh's longtime supporter and businessman Park Yeon-cha started right after the late leader harshly criticized President Lee Myung-bak for the latter's confrontational North Korea policy. And it cannot be denied all this was sped up against the backdrop of Lee's apparent reversion to strong-armed rule and the signs of deepening popular grievance as shown during the anniversary of the candlelight protest earlier this month.
One may seek the motivation behind the former President's extreme decision in his wishes to protect his family or defend his honor. Every death is personal, but for a person who once ruled a country, we could think it was the total destruction of the values he had fought for all his life, such as democracy and reconciliation and cooperation between the two Koreas, and the awareness that he could no longer do anything about it that brought him to utter despair.
Like everyone else, we also think Roh's demise should be an occasion for restoring national harmony rather than deepening the split. There is a prerequisite for that, however. Even though we can acknowledge that the Lee administration's stance toward North Korea policy is due to differences in policy, the government should not go back to authoritarian rule and the ``imperial presidency'' of decades ago, from which almost all the evils of Korean politics have stemmed.
The long queues of ordinary mourners may reflect wishes or longings for the freer democracy of a few years ago. If the scheduled calls of condolence by President Lee and his aides are mainly aimed at preventing the eruption of these oppressed complaints, the aftermath of Roh's demise could continue throughout their tenure.