President Lee’s Clash With Ideologies

Will Pragmatic Leader Rise Above Left-Right Disputes?

By Michael Ha
Staff Reporter

If President Lee Myung-bak's first 100 days at Cheong Wa Dae proved anything, it's that South Korea remains deeply divided along ideological lines and that conservatives underestimate the power of liberals at their peril.

``With a big margin in his victory, President Lee thought and misunderstood that he had a mandate to do whatever he wanted to do and that backfired,'' observed professor Shin Gi-wook, the director of the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford University.

``A presidency is different from mayorship. A president must be a good politician, not just an administrator, who is able to deal with diverse and often conflicting demands from various groups in society,'' Shin said.

Ralph Cossa, president of the Pacific Forum Center for Strategic and International Studies, observed: ``I feel a certain amount of sympathy for President Lee. One would have hoped he would have enjoyed a bit longer honeymoon before domestic politics created chaos. I think that Korea has suffered in recent years from the bitter progressive-conservative divide.''

President Lee faces a number of major issues that have become the battleground for liberal and conservative forces in Korea today. One major clash between the left and the right involves North Korea and the pro-engagement ``sunshine policy.''
And recently, U.S. beef import protests and candlelight vigils have also divided liberals and conservatives. President Lee's economic policies, including the pending Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA), have also become a point of contention between the left and right.

``The most important point of contention between liberals and conservatives has been the North Korea policy. More recently, candlelit protests and issues related to the U.S. beef import agreement have been at the center of ideological clashes between the left and the right,'' according to a representative for the Liberty Union, an influential conservative group in Seoul. The group is in the process of merging with another well-known association, the National League of New Right.

The Liberty Union representative told The Korea Times that ``liberal politicians have called these candlelit vigils a form of direct democracy. Even former President Kim Dae-jung described them as a case of citizens getting involved in direct democracy that could supplement representative democracy.''

But the conservative group argued that from the perspective of the right, ``it would be a stretch to call these protests a form of democracy. These gatherings cannot be interpreted as a form of democracy according to the Korean Constitution.''

There are also ideological clashes involving the pending Korea-U.S. free trade deal and President Lee's plan to privatize major public and government-run corporations.

``There is an intense debate over how far such privatization should go and how quickly such reforms should be carried out. Such a change would have a major impact on those employed in public entities.''

An official from the right-leaning Hansun Foundation for Freedom and Prosperity said the disagreement over the nature of the Korea-U.S. alliance was another source of conflict.

``There is a wide gap between how the liberals and the conservatives view the relationship with the United States. Liberals say what they want is an equal, respectful partnership between South Korea and America. Liberals argue the conservatives are too eager to accommodate U.S. demands at the expense of South Korea's national interest. Liberals say they do not want to sell out to the United States.''

On the other hand, conservatives portray liberals' stance as ``anti-U.S.'' politics. ``Conservatives argue that liberals have an anti-U.S. approach. Generally speaking, liberals in South Korea view the United States critically,'' according to the Hansun Foundation.

``Candlelit vigils have been a political litmus test. If you are a conservative, you would have a cooperative view toward the United States, and you may not support these protests.''

On economic issues, liberal politicians have been consistently opposing the KORUS FTA. On the other hand, the conservatives' rallying cry has been ``Korea's survival depends on free trade.'' Conservatives in Korea, similar to their Western counterparts, champion wealth distribution through competition, while liberals emphasize equitable distributions with possible government assistance.

President Lee has also been facing criticism from conservatives. One complaint voiced by some traditional conservatives is that President Lee's promise of ``pragmatism'' can be a confusion of identity.

An official from a liberal think tank, the Good Policy Forum, said President Lee's economic policies are based on ``market fundamentalism'' and that the President also holds a view that ``excessive social welfare programs'' will foster the public's dependency on government assistance. ``The President wants to solve welfare problems through economic growth."

How can President Lee get out of the current political turmoil and work with liberal opponents? Professor Shin argued that President Lee underestimated the liberals while thinking that his big margin of victory gave him freedom to pursue his policy agenda.

``President Lee has fallen into the trap of ABR (anything but Roh),'' he said.

``The Grand National Party (GNP) has capitalized on anti-Roh sentiments in the previous years and Lee also won his presidency on the same sentiment. He continued the same approach even after his election to the presidency and in doing so underestimated the latent power of progressive forces,'' he said.

``Korea is deeply divided along political and ideological lines and, even worse, those lines are tied to their respective identity, making it hard to reach compromises on key issues such as the DPRK and the alliance. The divided polity poses the main challenge for the Lee administration.''

Shin observed that with the recent shuffling of the presidential secretariat, along with the expected change of Cabinet members, two things are essential.
``The first is to put his own house in order, especially establishing a constructive relationship with Park Geun-hye,'' he said.

``The next is to reach out to progressive forces and opposition parties. A president must be a good politician who is able to deal with diverse and often conflicting demands from various groups of society, not just an administrator.''

Professor Shin also said there is also a ``larger structural factor" to the current problem: the single-term presidency.

``It was the outcome of a particular historical situation in the aftermath of the democratic transition in 1987. It is now time to assess its efficacy and consider some constitutional changes or adjustments in the power structure. In my view, it is time to consider seriously adopting the parliamentary system. In any rate, I expect some discussions and debates in the coming months and years about this issue.''

John Feffer, co-director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies, recalled that former Presidents Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun defined their liberal presidencies in terms of engagement with North Korea.

But, he noted, ``President Lee has challenged the core of this liberal approach.''

``These two liberal presidents also imagined a role for South Korea that was more independent of the United States, both in terms of cultivating a relationship with the North as well as creating a more self-sufficient military,'' Feffer said. ``President Lee has challenged this, too, by attempting to curry favor with the Bush administration.

``I don't think that these are inherently left positions, however. Engagement with North Korea is, frankly, a matter of realpolitik, just like Nixon's engagement with China. And greater independence from the United States is a classic nationalist approach that can be found on both the left and right.''

Feffer argued that for President Lee to salvage his presidency, ``he should rethink how he defines pragmatism.''

``Is it pragmatic to alienate so many citizens over the beef/FTA issue? Is it pragmatic to alienate North Korea after 10 years of greater cooperation? Is it pragmatic to cling to the United States even as Washington is drawing down troops on the Korean peninsula?''

He added: ``It is still possible for President Lee to rise above the `left' and `right' disputes and articulate a real pragmatic foreign policy that reflects the hopes and desires of the majority of South Korean citizens.''

michaelha@koreatimes.co.kr

Deepening Division

“South Korea is deeply divided along political and ideological lines and, even worse, those lines are tied to their respective identity, making them hard to make compromise on key issues such as North Korea and alliance.”

Shin Gi-wook, director of the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif.

Liberal Approach

“Former liberal Presidents Kim Daejung and Roh Moo-hyun defined their liberal presidencies in terms of engagement with North Korea. President Lee has challenged the core of this liberal approach.”

John Feffer, co-director of Foreign Policy In Focus at Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C.