[Democracy Cooperation] Korea Democracy Storytelling Interview II: Citizens' Participation in Democracy through Public Deliberation Forums

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2KsZpet57w

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

The East Asia Institute (EAI), under the sponsorship of the National Democratic Institute (NDI), conducted an interview with Park Tae-soon, Director of the Social Conflict Research Institute and President of the Korea Public Deliberation Forum, as part of the Korea Democracy Storytelling project launched in July 2020. This approximately 20-minute interview covers topics such as participatory democracy and deliberative democracy in Korea, the activities of the Korea Public Deliberation Forum, cases of citizen-centered autonomous public deliberation forums, and the potential for democratic development through citizen-led public deliberation forums. To widely disseminate the cases and lessons of Korean democracy domestically and internationally, this interview video includes Korean and English descriptions and English subtitles.

Video Transcript

Mmm, mmm, mmm, mmm, mmm, mmm. One, participatory democracy generally refers to citizens participating in the political process to make decisions, and then reflecting those decisions in national affairs. However, participatory democracy truly emerged in our society and political process with the launch of the Roh Moo-hyun administration. At that time, the actual meaning of participation was to incorporate the diverse voices of citizens into the political process.

This meant reflecting the opinions of various civic organizations in decision-making. The term most commonly used at the time was 'consultation,' where civic organizations would convey citizens' opinions and reflect them in national affairs. The term 'participatory democracy' was widely used in this manner. However, the primary limitation of participatory democracy, or perhaps its inherent characteristic, was that in a pluralistic society, it did not directly represent the will of the so-called majority. Instead, civic organizations acted as representatives. Another aspect was that participatory democracy emphasizes the number of participants, making it difficult to effectively incorporate and develop the qualitative differences and diverse perspectives of the participants into political content.

As a result, participatory democracy has evolved, with our society increasingly emphasizing deliberation, where people think together to distinguish between differences and commonalities, and then reflect those commonalities in national affairs. While some scholars interpret deliberative democracy within the broader framework of participatory democracy, others distinguish it. Participatory democracy was based on numbers and representation by organizations. However, the focus has shifted towards how to concretely incorporate diversity and how to form content rather than merely filling quotas. Therefore, it is moving towards deliberative democracy, discursive democracy, and other various terms, which are distinguished from participatory democracy.

In this regard, while participatory democracy focused on participation and the majority, deliberative and discursive democracy place significant emphasis on diversity, differences, consensus building, and the process of deliberation, where people think and learn together. I believe it is right for our society to move towards such a deliberative and discursive democracy. Some people, when they hear that content is formed through public deliberation forums, ask if that isn't a form of direct democracy.

Direct democracy also has its limitations. It can easily lead to the tyranny of the majority. While giving everyone one vote in direct democracy seems fair, in modern society, unlike in the past, where people have significant differences, it is very difficult to accommodate this diversity. In this sense, deliberative and discursive democracy are not about giving everyone an equal vote, but rather about how much we can engage in the issues at hand. While it is related to direct democracy, the focus is somewhat different. Of course, direct democracy is fine in the context of daily life in village communities, but it is practically difficult for national decision-making or public matters. It is more realistic to form opinions through discussions among interested parties based on voluntary participation.

Our Korea Public Deliberation Forum is uniquely registered as an organization affiliated with the National Assembly. It was officially registered with the National Assembly in 2019. People ask why it is registered with the executive branch, where most organizations are usually registered. I explain that there are two reasons. First, the nature of administration is execution. If an organization is registered with a government agency involved in execution, the focus inevitably shifts towards how to execute decided matters rather than forming public opinion. The tasks undertaken also tend to follow this direction. We believe that establishing a relationship with the National Assembly, the people's representative body, is more desirable for forming public opinion. Even if public deliberation forums are created and discussions are held, if the ultimate goal is to translate the discussions into laws and systems, then the tension between the National Assembly, a state institution, and civil society must be respected. Therefore, we registered the Korea Public Deliberation Forum with the National Assembly to realize the public consensus gathered through the National Assembly.

This was done with the intention of realizing the public consensus gathered through the National Assembly. We were established last year and are currently developing our activities. Last year, we operated not as an organization-based entity, but by bringing together people who voluntarily agreed on specific issues. These voluntarily gathered individuals formed opinions through discussions, and then conveyed these formed opinions to public institutions, including the National Assembly. This is how we have been operating. Last year, for instance, we opened a public deliberation forum to establish the fundamental principles and operational guidelines for public deliberation forums, which citizens themselves created. We addressed youth issues, not from the perspective of generational conflict, but by focusing on how to dismantle the internal divisions within youth, as there is significant lack of mutual understanding. We held this forum with young people. This year, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been some difficulties, but in the second half of the year, we plan to concentrate on public healthcare, aiming to gather public opinions through public deliberation forums and convey them to the state.

Our unique approach is that we do not form opinions centered around organizations. In an individualized society, the basic unit is the individual, so individual opinions become the elements. We then gather these individual opinions, which we generally refer to as the public. Through sufficient information and discussion, we consolidate these public opinions and convey them to public institutions, exerting pressure. However, a critical problem with nation-state-centered public deliberation is that the public cannot accurately control the agenda, discussion topics, process, or utilization of results.

The public is merely mobilized, often in a participatory democracy manner. The state also decides how the results of the deliberation will be utilized. In concept and content, public deliberation is not something created arbitrarily by the state. It is a process where people voluntarily gather based on the needs of civil society, activate and deepen discussions, form content, and then exert social pressure on the state. This is the original meaning of public deliberation.

Therefore, we are striving to create citizen-centered, voluntary public deliberation forums. For a forum to be called a public deliberation forum, it must not only be voluntary but also include the concept of power, that is, the ability to realize the gathered opinions of citizens and the public concerning state power. It is not enough for it to be merely voluntary. The meaning of 'not just voluntary' is crucial. While voluntary public forums can be created at the village level, their influence is limited.

We believe that even the smallest public forum must have the internal goal of exerting pressure on state power and changing laws and systems. I personally gained confidence that voluntary public deliberation is possible through my experience leading the public deliberation for the expansion of public healthcare in western Gyeongnam from January to July. Although the proposal for the expansion of public healthcare in western Gyeongnam came from the Governor of Gyeongnam Province, the process of gathering participants and forming content through their discussions was highly voluntary.

For example, previously, public projects selected participants through a lottery system, often referred to as the '추첨제' (chuchumje). When there are no significant qualitative differences among people, the lottery method is very effective. However, in a society with highly advanced and diverse characteristics, a lottery system does not work. If you pick one color out of seven colors of the rainbow, does that one color represent all seven colors? No. What is important is not focusing on the lottery or giving everyone an equal opportunity, but whether we can reflect those differences. In this regard, voluntarism is crucial for constituting a public deliberation forum. It must be composed of voluntary participants. When people engage with issues that are personally urgent and relevant to them, they participate very actively. If it's not their issue, but a national issue, it's different. However, public healthcare, for instance, is their issue.

When people discuss their own issues, they become very active. The discussion process becomes very passionate and deep. Ultimately, when people recognize an issue as their own, their interest and level of discussion significantly increase. Isn't this what we desire for deliberative and discursive democracy? Isn't this a qualitative advancement of democracy? This serves as an opportunity to confirm that.

Let's consider this: currently, amidst the ongoing situation, there is a severe conflict between the government and the medical community regarding public healthcare. Public healthcare is not someone else's problem. All citizens pay a monthly fee to the Korean Medical Association, which is withheld at source. As citizens, healthcare is a very important issue for everyone. Can the medical community truly represent the public? While they may represent a part of the public, the government's policies were not developed through smooth communication with the public. In such situations, instead of acting as judges to determine whether the government or the medical community is right, we should gather the diverse will of the public. If citizens gather and thoroughly deliberate on the direction and principles of public healthcare, excellent outcomes will emerge.

Some may question whether ordinary citizens can make sound decisions in a field as specialized as healthcare. However, people cannot decide which drug to use to treat cancer, but they can discuss and make good decisions about the direction of national policy for treating cancer. I am confident that the public, through public deliberation forums, can make highly informed decisions about the principles and basic direction of public healthcare in our society, provided there is sufficient information, discussion, and deliberation.

We have consistently confirmed this in practice. As long as people gather, discuss, deliberate, and learn, they do not make mistakes. They consistently produce high-quality outcomes. When this does not happen, it is usually because the designer of the process made a mistake. But if the process is well-designed, people will make wiser judgments than expected. In this sense, we need to create public deliberation forums for everyday issues that are related to our lives. The public should not be mere voters or passive participants; they should be the owners of public deliberation forums that solve problems in various aspects of life. Let us become such citizens.

This is the qualitative advancement of democracy, isn't it? This serves as an opportunity to confirm that. Let's think about it. Currently, in the midst of a heated situation, the government and the medical community are experiencing extreme conflict regarding public healthcare. Public healthcare is not someone else's problem. All citizens pay a monthly fee to the Korean Medical Association, which is withheld at source. As citizens, healthcare is a very important issue for everyone. Can the medical community truly represent the public? While they may represent a part of the public, the government's policies were not developed through smooth communication with the public. In such situations, instead of acting as judges to determine whether the government or the medical community is right, we should gather the diverse will of the public. If citizens gather and thoroughly deliberate on the direction and principles of public healthcare, excellent outcomes will emerge.

Some may question whether ordinary citizens can make sound decisions in a field as specialized as healthcare. However, people cannot decide which drug to use to treat cancer, but they can discuss and make good decisions about the direction of national policy for treating cancer. I am confident that the public, through public deliberation forums, can make highly informed decisions about the principles and basic direction of public healthcare in our society, provided there is sufficient information, discussion, and deliberation.

We have consistently confirmed this in practice. As long as people gather, discuss, deliberate, and learn, they do not make mistakes. They consistently produce high-quality outcomes. When this does not happen, it is usually because the designer of the process made a mistake. But if the process is well-designed, people will make wiser judgments than expected. In this sense, we need to create public deliberation forums for everyday issues that are related to our lives. The public should not be mere voters or passive participants; they should be the owners of public deliberation forums that solve problems in various aspects of life. Let us become such citizens.

However, we have always confirmed this in practice. As long as there is a process where people gather, discuss, deliberate, and learn, people do not make mistakes. They consistently produce high-quality outcomes. When this does not happen, it is usually because the person who designed the process made a mistake. But if it is well-designed, people will make wiser judgments than expected. In this sense, we should create public deliberation forums for everyday issues that are related to our lives. The public should not be mere voters; they should be the owners of public deliberation forums that solve problems in various aspects of life. Let us become such citizens.