![]() |
Despite the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye, the protests against her continue.
Hundreds of thousands of protestors filled the boulevards of downtown Seoul this Saturday, the day after the impeachment, with leaders pledging to keep the pressure up until she is out of office.
The purpose now is to make sure that the establishment does not fail in its mission to approve the impeachment, investigate the President and send her to jail.
That raises a concern.
There is a risk now that the campaign of peaceful protest articulating a national consensus might degenerate. Could it turn into something less popular, more chaotic and, ironically, in contradiction to what Korea's democracy now desperately needs – which is, stronger and more trusted institutions instead of decision-making by demo size?
Let's be clear, people power this time has delivered for democracy.
It has signaled to the decision-making establishment the seriousness of the scandal in the Blue House and pushed it to act.
We should acknowledge, too, that this people power, as opposed to normal protest, has been a very civilized expression of popular anger. The police have been exemplary and, in this mood of acceptance and safety, protestors have been creative, preferring to bring a smile to your face rather than making you clench your fist.
So, the people have spoken in a historical way. But could the scale and the impact of these protests be so thrilling for the politically active that some may now find it hard to resist the temptation to keep going, pushing partisan themes through street protest with the conviction that this is the only way that democracy works.
It is worth remembering that the perceived offense of the President that has led to the impeachment by four-fifths of the National Assembly – a clear and rare majority which feels she is no longer fit to rule – is the violation of the democratic contract, a form of political breach of trust.
Here is the issue: if protestors now try to keep up the pressure through high-decibel disruption – that's what it is like every Saturday for those of us who live downtown – in order to influence the judiciary, are they not also breaking their side of the trust contract?
I ask this because the Constitutional Court, the special prosecutor, the prosecutors investigating Choi Soon-sil, and the judges who will handle this and other related cases must be able to come to impartial and fair decisions based on law uncolored by fear of the chanting mob, the assault on their reputations, and the brick through the window.
The court of public opinion, let's face it, is an unruly zone of emotional and judgment that lacks rules. You would not want to be judged by it, so why insist that it be able to judge others?
A real court should not follow the public gallery.
There, decision-makers should be respected for their objectivity and wisdom and not because they make rulings that we agree with.
It is also worth reminding ourselves that all those involved, including the President, remain innocent until they are proven guilty. (In some systems that value fairness, the prosecution case against President Park might be thrown out of court because the prosecutor in his leaks and public statements has clearly been trying to prejudice the outcome).
To disagree is to undermine the very democracy that millions of Koreans have spent the past few weeks coming out to uphold.
True, there is mistrust of institutions. True, the law looks good on paper, but as people who have been investigated can tell you, the attitude of prosecutors is often, "The law is what I say it is." And, true, those making legal judgments are human.
But what we need here is not to enshrine street politics as the ultimate arbiter because our institutions are frail and influenced by the elite. What we need instead is to push for stronger institutions to manage our democracy.
Michael Breen is the CEO of Insight Communications Consultants, a public relations company, and author of "The Koreans" and "Kim Jong-il: North Korea's Dear Leader."