On governance, law and morality

By Eugene Lee

In today's media, you'll find a very much disarray in opinions voiced over what is lawful and what is moral when it comes to issues of state governance. I've decided to offer a little bit of interpretation of what is what and how it all needs to be treated. We, humans, throughout all our history have been striving for many things, and the best type of governance is one of them.

This pursuit, as old as history itself, has taken a variety of forms. In religious terms, in teachings of Christ, Buddha, Confucius and Muhammad, all sought to envision an ultimate, good society in one way or the other. As time went on and written history and political philosophy began to play a larger role, the treatises of Plato and Aristotle in the West, and Wu Jing in the East rose to prominence. We were trying to find the best way to organize ourselves to achieve social order and spread prosperity across society.

The government, meaning the administrative bureaucracy, is a group of people who, in a structured way, are put in charge of administering a country. Governance, on the other hand, is different from government and may or may not be the product of it. It is "the process of interaction between laws, norms, rules, power and language" over a country, in our case.

In other words, just by the definition, it is insufficient to claim that one will be able to run the country by the law. To run a country just "by the law" is simply impossible, because to make sure that the law is applied meaningfully will require enforcement of it, i.e. the existence of a system bigger than the government itself to supervise all of its subjects, including the government itself. Moreover, all this shows the folly of the current administration, which is ready to bypass "norms, rules, power and language," crucial ingredients of any governance.

Even if so, let's talk a bit more about such an application of the law. On the individual level, we have two aspects that govern our behavior ― law and morality.

According to one definition, the law is a set of rules written by a legislative body and supported by government institutions. These are, we term them as legal, rules, that the state establishes and upholds with the goal of regulating behavior and averting negative outcomes.

Morality is a set of ideas and guidelines concerning what is good or bad, right or wrong and permitted or not. Moral standards, being products of society or certain social groups. Just like legal norms, moral norms point out to people the proper behavior to engage in as well as the penalties for not doing so.

One important distinction between the two is that the law is hard-coded, inscribed on a medium, and moral rules are not. Plus, moral norms do sanction individuals, sometimes even immediately, whereas the law may not. Social morality and moral ideals, begot by society, influence each one of us, even before we come to existence.

Whenever it comes to their enforcement, there are social costs of moral rules, as well moral incentives ― guilt or virtue felt by an individual, and admonition or praise given by others (i.e., if you see a dropping approval rate ― check your morals!).

In their relationship morals usually stand higher than the law. The law is, in a way, a product of moral values that at some point society has decided to protect. With its higher social value, morality is far superior to the use and application of the law. When an administrator is faced with a situation where a choice needs to be made, it is morality, not the law that usually is taken as guidance. Lack of morality, or distorted morality of any administrator will end in immoral acts without being conscious about the conduct.

The major issue with moral values and principles is that they work well at the individual level. Once individuals begin to engage in group relations, be it a branch of government, an organization or a firm, those principles tend to dilute, as matters of group loyalty and conformity come into play. Instead of serving the common good, an immoral bureaucrat may easily find companions and abuse the power to serve group or individual goals.

South Korea's path in search of the best way to govern itself has been ziggy-and-zaggy. Going from monarchy, surviving through external subjugation, enduring autocracy, being challenged by communism and being entangled in crony nets of an oligarchy, it has finally arrived at a democratic form. It is far from perfect and from encompassing everything and everyone.

It is relatively young, hence it is striving to survive. In spite of the toil and sacrifice, it can be lost. It needs support and care. So, when it comes to the current administration's decisions, my call would be toward those traditional moral values that Korea is trying to rediscover. The administration must be careful and prudent, and we must be careful and prudent.

As Plato calls for leadership to be "wise," so would I. And as he once warned against leadership being unbalanced, or as in his words, do not let "greed, ambition, and foolishness" rule your decisions, I would stick to that also. So, let not the law be your guide, but your morals. But even then, please, double-check your moral allegiances. Make sure they are truly yours and not someone else's.

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.