Importance of debate, or how not to implement your policies

By Eugene Lee

One thing that South Korea particularly is and has been historically lacking is good public debate. One would think that a country that is on the verge of being called "developed," unfortunately, in spite of her achievements, is desperately looking for ways to sort things out. Why did that happen? The answer is, yet again, in history.

In Korea, there has never been a chance for a legitimate public debate to take place. We may encounter some philosophical discussions in the late 19th century. But the latest references to debating as we know it go back to the times of Goguryo, the late 6th century.
If you look in the Annals of the Three Kingdoms, known as Samguk-sagi and Samguk-yusa, one can discover references pointing at Hwarang philosophy, which highlight not just debates, but also inclusiveness that allowed even women to not only participate in the exchange of opinions, but also to lead.

Once Confucianism enters the arena in the late seventh century, social relations become heavily hierarchical and the culture of debate simply disappears. Later, the uniformity propagated by neo-Confucian scholars labeled any type of debate "futile" and called it "a waste of time."

Fast-forward to our time and one will encounter a situation where any type of public discourse is not in the mainstream media, but being shoved into the murky wilds of social networks. The amusing spectacle of scripted political exchange we have observed in the last presidential elections is an indicator of how dire the situation has become.

And in the light of current circumstances, I would like to lay out my proposal for a daring introduction of public debate on multiple levels of government in South Korea as quickly as possible. The idea might sound a bit radical, but it would be timely and it undoubtedly will fix a thing or two for the current administration.

Between its benefits, healthy public debate requires good communications skills ― exactly the skills that all recent administrations have been lacking. It will bring a sense of predictability to all: to the leadership, politicians, administrators, and the public. It will also force all sides to learn how to listen to the ideas of others and be able to refute the ideas that may deem insufficient. Moreover, it will encourage everyone to think critically about those ideas, and not just simply criticize or absurdly blame someone for those ideas.

With a properly designed approach, a good public debate will restore the connection with and ultimately, be to the service of, the people ― the two promises, unfortunately, the administration has failed to keep.

Don't get me wrong ― I don't mean to simply start debating everything and everywhere. That won't work. My argument is that if we begin debates at least at the ministerial level with participation of not only public officers, but also academics and civil groups, we will produce much, much better results.

For example, such lack of professional debating is reflected in the latest faux pas by the Ministry of Education with its proposed policy to revise the school entry age of the pupils from six down to five years old. The mind-boggling negligence, or maybe even ignorance, is simply shocking. It is widely known that prior to any policy adoption, favored major ideas need to be disseminated between key stakeholders.

Then, after getting the feedback from those stakeholders, the policy will take a clearer shape and a small group test run would be conducted (might take a year or two). Based on the data from that study, a decision would need to be made with more input from other ministries and experts in the field. A gradual and supervised implementation would ensue, and the plan would generally take place.

The haste of the policy proposal is simply staggering, and no wonder it has caused a public uproar. Even if the minister has resigned, it still begs the question, how this individual who used to be at the helm of several prime research think-tanks of graduate schools in two prime universities, could come up with a so badly thought through idea?

Had the cabinet or the Ministry of Education had a mechanism resembling some type of debate in place, this idea would have been weeded out long before it was made public, which would have spared heads from rolling and ultimately, the face of the administration. Now all we can do is ponder who will take up the role, and the new hire is most likely to be under the scrutiny of the public and what is likely to happen to the outgoing minister, as there will be an army of truth-seekers chasing her for a very long time.

Obviously, there is a possibility that even a debate isn't going to resolve the issues ― a closely knit circle of think-alikes will lead to groupthink. However, a well-crafted venue and management of such debates is likely to bring in a critical and objective approach to the issues. And in conclusion, my last suggestion ― if we are to debate things ― focuses on and evaluate ideas; not on those who offer them.

Otherwise, one will end up with everyone naming each other for any wrongdoing, instead of finding constructive solutions ― a very common situation that lead to factionalism in the attempt to integrate debates into government bodies a century and a half ago in late Joseon. A good debate must lead to a better choice for everyone. And no matter what policy you come up with, "do no harm" should be your leading premise.

Eugene Lee (mreulee@gmail.com) is a lecturing professor at the Graduate School of Governance at Sungkyunkwan University in Seoul. Specializing in international relations and governance, his research and teaching focus on national and regional security, international development, government policies and Northeast and Central Asia.