Democracy Cooperation] Interview on Korea's Democratic Experience Shared with the International Community II: Assembly Member Tae-kyung Ha

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqsd1U-zwiQ

The East Asia Institute (EAI) interviewed Tae-kyung Ha, a member of the People Power Party, on the theme of "Korea's Democratic Experience Shared with the International Community." This interview was produced to examine Korea's successful democratic case and its lessons. Assembly Member Ha emphasizes that an independent judiciary and a high average level of public education are crucial factors that have driven democratic success.

This interview was conducted as part of the Korea Democracy Storytelling Project, supported by the National Democratic Institute (NDI).

■ Contact and Editing: Yoon Ha-eun, EAI Researcher

Inquiries: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 208) | hyoon@eai.or.kr

Video Transcript

I have also thought about this for a long time. Domestically, our politics are always noisy and problematic, but looking globally, I see South Korea as a very adventurous country, not only in economic growth but also in democracy, even when compared to more advanced democracies recently. I've often wondered why. The conclusion I've reached is that two factors are most significant: first, the judiciary has been thoroughly independent, and second, the average level of education of the people is very high, meaning the civilization level of the people is high.

I thought these two factors were important. Why? Because the ultimate safeguard that allowed us to achieve both democracy and economic growth is a society where justice prevails, where hard work is rewarded, where grievances can be addressed, and where wrongdoers are likely to be punished. These are taken for granted by people. Domestically, the judiciary has earned the trust of the people since the establishment of the Republic of Korea. While there have been minor mistakes, in the grand scheme, it has fairly adjudicated right from wrong.

It fairly adjudicates right from wrong. In contrast, in other developing countries, the judiciary can be swayed by power; even if one has done nothing wrong, they can be deemed a criminal, and if one has done wrong, they might be acquitted. In such cases, there is no incentive to work hard. Instead, democracy becomes corrupt, and the economy deteriorates rather than grows. However, in Korea, the independence of the judiciary was strictly maintained even during past military regimes, and it has been thoroughly protected since democratization. I believe this is the most crucial factor.

Secondly, the people's educational level is high, meaning the overall civilization level of Korea is high. Recently, in Myanmar, a military coup occurred after democratization. However, in Korea, 1987 is considered important. At that time, there was nationwide trust in democracy. I was attending university then, and although there were rumors of tanks appearing, they never did. Thus, the transfer of power was very peaceful, and democracy has since become as natural as air. Even the military in South Korea consisted of relatively enlightened individuals.

They possessed at least a minimum level of education and culture regarding freedom, equality, and human rights. When I was involved in the democratization movement and student activism in the 1980s, I was sometimes arrested by agencies like the Agency for National Security Planning and even subjected to some physical mistreatment. But looking back now, the investigators also shared a common value system. I was the one being investigated, and they were the investigators, but we both believed that Korea should prosper, and we were connected as part of a network within Korea, not as individuals who had to destroy each other.

There was this shared value system of Korea, which was stronger compared to other developing countries. Regarding what we can offer as assistance, especially after witnessing the situation in Myanmar and other countries experiencing democratic struggles, I believe it is necessary to provide practical support. Specifically, I have proposed legislation to provide financial assistance to NGOs fighting for democracy and human rights, and I expect it to pass with bipartisan support. The bill aims to support individuals and organizations working to promote human rights globally. I hope these activities will be revitalized, and I particularly hope that the spirit of Gwangju, which I experienced, will not be confined domestically but will expand to support North Korean human rights and Myanmar, gradually broadening its scope.

Initially, I hope that successful initiatives in Asia will extend globally. I believe the President's role is crucial here. The President's visit to Gwangju and the emphasis on spreading the Gwangju spirit globally is a mindset that has been lacking. Korean democracy, particularly in recent times, is associated with the '86 generation, whose democratic movement had a somewhat anti-foreign sentiment, leading to a narrow, closed-off democracy characterized by anti-Americanism and anti-Japanese sentiment. In this regard, my generation and the older generation need to reflect. My generation, through corporate activities and civic movements, has gained considerable experience.

We have global experience, and I believe many people agree that elites should engage in activities to spread this globally. If the government emphasizes these points, it will be recognized. Furthermore, the 2030 generation is entirely globalized. I believe this generation can contribute to various aspects of supporting global democracy by expanding their fields of activity and broadening their perspectives. In that regard, I will lead the efforts. I believe the crisis of Korean democracy is intrinsically linked to the current global crisis.

This is due to the rejection of experts. The rapid development of the 'Four Asian Tigers'—specifically Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore—was possible because experts were respected and their insights were valued. However, as politics became more democratized and information spread through social media, the power of the majority often clashes with that of a few experts, leading to situations where conspiracy theories triumph over factual evidence. Recently, even in the United States, considered the most developed democracy, there was an incident involving a president and conspiracy theories, resulting in the suspension of social media accounts. While South Korea experiences this to a lesser extent than the US, the mad cow disease incident demonstrated the power of the majority rejecting expert opinions. How to check these tendencies has become a critical issue in the democratic development of various countries, and it is entirely possible for the masses to lead a nation. Therefore, the importance of fact-checking and the ethics of facts must be emphasized, and educational infrastructure needs to be strengthened.

Educational infrastructure needs to be strengthened, and within social media itself, fact-checking should be implemented, perhaps by suspending accounts that continuously spread conspiracy theories. Regarding the media, while the current press control bill being pursued by the ruling party in Korea is excessive, there are still instances where the media intentionally spreads false information. There are many such cases, and perhaps punishments for these should be strengthened. This is about ensuring that freedom of expression does not become an environment where one can spread conspiracy theories without concern. Freedom entails responsibility, but this is a freedom that does not impose responsibility, leading to irresponsible democracy. This is not freedom; it is a form of chaos. Therefore, discussions on how to check and control the negative aspects of the development of mass democracy, or grassroots democracy, need to be activated. While much research may already exist on these new democratic risks and dangers, it is an urgent issue. Otherwise, we risk losing global leadership to non-democratic countries. If such leadership is strengthened, there are advantages. Therefore, while we must be concerned about the regression of democracy, we must also pay attention to aspects where democracy itself hinders social progress and develop countermeasures.

But it is her desperate problem, and otherwise, if the democratic countries take away global leadership, it could be lost. If the conditions are strengthened, there are these points. Therefore, while we must worry about the retreat of democracy on one hand, we must also pay attention to the aspect where democracy itself hinders social development and prepare countermeasures. That is what I would like to say.