By Michael Breen
It is a foregone conclusion now that, regardless of who wins next week's presidential election, Korea's democracy is about to be improved.
We can be confident of this not only because the National Assembly is committed to a very necessary constitutional change to reduce the powers of the presidential office, but also because the new leadership team will certainly want to differentiate itself from its two predecessors.
In the short history of Korea's democracy, starting with the election of Roh Tae-woo in 1987, rights and freedoms expanded with each administration. But then, in reaction to Roh Moo-hyun (no relative), the fourth and most democratically-minded president of them all (but who lacked the political skill to secure the proper support for his program), democracy took two steps backwards.
Lee Myung-bak (2008-13) clamped down on freedom of expression, a bad habit continued more from a sense of presidential entitlement than meanness by Park Geun-hye (who may well turn out to be the historic first four-year term president because she was impeached in the fifth year and is now in prison awaiting trial).
The most visible change we are likely to see is the move from the single five-year presidency into a two four-year terms system, as in the United States. One of the benefits of this will be more long-term strategic planning. One of the remarkable weaknesses in Korea now is that beside the 10-year and use plan, there is no planning that outlives the incumbent president's term.
Another significant likely change is the handing over of some presidential powers to the prime minister. Whether this will lead to a broader reforms remains to be seen. Most important on the agenda should be chaebol reform, but it remains to be seen what the new government is able to do on this front.
It is easy to forget in a presidential system where all eyes are on the top person that democracy is not simply about how much power a leader has or doesn't have. Life is more complex than that. There are at least two areas where reform is needed but which I predict will not change.
One ironic forecast we may make in light of former President Park's case is that, because her unnecessary incarceration before the trial is relished as sweet vengeance for those who consider themselves to be in favor of democracy, it is unlikely that the democratic champions in the next administration will have any inkling of the need for reform in the legal system, in terms of improved rights for defendants and scaling back of prosecutorial abuse.
This is a pity because attitudes around justice and abusive practices are one of the causes of the deeply-rooted anger and mistrust in Korean society.
The other area where there needs to be change but where it probably won't happen for a while concerns consumers.
Korea is a country that is very much set up to benefit the producer and not the consumer. This is in fact one of the main legacies of the export focus that built the country. Back in the 20th century, consumers did matter, of course, but they were foreigners, Mr. and Mrs. Smith in Pittsburgh, buying their LG fridge, Hyundai car and Samsung TV. They mattered, but it was not the Korean government's job to care about them. It cared about the Korean entity selling to them.
As for Mr. and Mrs. Kim in Korea, they were important to politicians as consumers, not because they might want and need better quality food, furniture and the rest, but because they didn't want to pay too much for things like gas, electricity or taxis. Hence the pressure on KEPCO, gas stations and taxi drivers to keep their prices down.
It is an odd feature in this society, now that Korea is advanced, that the consumer still has no voice. Labor has a very powerful voice, but then labor is part of the "producer." (Consumer sympathy for labor is easily manipulated because consumers work too). Even minority shareholders have a voice of sorts.
But consumers don't. When their interests are damaged, everything goes quiet. When, for example, the mom and pop store association protested that hypermarkets were damaging their business, the government, in a typically weird effort at compromise, ordered the hypermarkets to close every second Sunday, nobody asked, "What is best for Mr. and Mrs. Kim?"
It's about time they did.
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."
.jpg/dims/resize/740/optimize) |
We can be confident of this not only because the National Assembly is committed to a very necessary constitutional change to reduce the powers of the presidential office, but also because the new leadership team will certainly want to differentiate itself from its two predecessors.
In the short history of Korea's democracy, starting with the election of Roh Tae-woo in 1987, rights and freedoms expanded with each administration. But then, in reaction to Roh Moo-hyun (no relative), the fourth and most democratically-minded president of them all (but who lacked the political skill to secure the proper support for his program), democracy took two steps backwards.
Lee Myung-bak (2008-13) clamped down on freedom of expression, a bad habit continued more from a sense of presidential entitlement than meanness by Park Geun-hye (who may well turn out to be the historic first four-year term president because she was impeached in the fifth year and is now in prison awaiting trial).
The most visible change we are likely to see is the move from the single five-year presidency into a two four-year terms system, as in the United States. One of the benefits of this will be more long-term strategic planning. One of the remarkable weaknesses in Korea now is that beside the 10-year and use plan, there is no planning that outlives the incumbent president's term.
Another significant likely change is the handing over of some presidential powers to the prime minister. Whether this will lead to a broader reforms remains to be seen. Most important on the agenda should be chaebol reform, but it remains to be seen what the new government is able to do on this front.
It is easy to forget in a presidential system where all eyes are on the top person that democracy is not simply about how much power a leader has or doesn't have. Life is more complex than that. There are at least two areas where reform is needed but which I predict will not change.
One ironic forecast we may make in light of former President Park's case is that, because her unnecessary incarceration before the trial is relished as sweet vengeance for those who consider themselves to be in favor of democracy, it is unlikely that the democratic champions in the next administration will have any inkling of the need for reform in the legal system, in terms of improved rights for defendants and scaling back of prosecutorial abuse.
This is a pity because attitudes around justice and abusive practices are one of the causes of the deeply-rooted anger and mistrust in Korean society.
The other area where there needs to be change but where it probably won't happen for a while concerns consumers.
Korea is a country that is very much set up to benefit the producer and not the consumer. This is in fact one of the main legacies of the export focus that built the country. Back in the 20th century, consumers did matter, of course, but they were foreigners, Mr. and Mrs. Smith in Pittsburgh, buying their LG fridge, Hyundai car and Samsung TV. They mattered, but it was not the Korean government's job to care about them. It cared about the Korean entity selling to them.
As for Mr. and Mrs. Kim in Korea, they were important to politicians as consumers, not because they might want and need better quality food, furniture and the rest, but because they didn't want to pay too much for things like gas, electricity or taxis. Hence the pressure on KEPCO, gas stations and taxi drivers to keep their prices down.
It is an odd feature in this society, now that Korea is advanced, that the consumer still has no voice. Labor has a very powerful voice, but then labor is part of the "producer." (Consumer sympathy for labor is easily manipulated because consumers work too). Even minority shareholders have a voice of sorts.
But consumers don't. When their interests are damaged, everything goes quiet. When, for example, the mom and pop store association protested that hypermarkets were damaging their business, the government, in a typically weird effort at compromise, ordered the hypermarkets to close every second Sunday, nobody asked, "What is best for Mr. and Mrs. Kim?"
It's about time they did.
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."
![[INTERVIEW] Korea has great opportunity to lead green transition](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/7321cddf734c43269db9ae00b4d9ddd7.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![[INTERVIEW] Namseoul University leads adoption of innovative IB education programs](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/5291e6a2f3df420e83c62c2c4f712591.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![[INTERVIEW] Song Kang discusses evolving role in 'Sweet Home' season 2](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/6198bd8bdd3743dba999cb42454d5cc3.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
