[The 6th EAI Academy] ① Korean Democracy and Reform Tasks

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VMmnoSGgg0

■ Kang Won-taek_Director of the EAI Center for Democracy and Human Rights, Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Seoul National University.

Video Transcript

If I look like I'm wearing red, what should I do? Today, the story I want to share with you is simply about Korean politics these days. When people talk about politics, especially in other households or when taking a taxi, they often start with complaints, right? They tend to be very negative. However, from the perspective of studying politics or policy, I believe it is important to observe ourselves from a non-political standpoint.

Therefore, in my classes, I always emphasize that Korean politics should be viewed from a comparative political perspective. When you meet foreign friends or people and they ask about Korea, saying 'We are different, we are unique' is not a helpful answer. It basically means 'I don't know.' You need to be able to explain the current situation in Korea in a language they can understand. If there's a problem, you need to explain why that problem arose. That's why I believe it's essential to view it from a comparative political perspective.

I believe evaluations should also be made in this way. When we feel internally, there are many negative aspects that Korean politics is experiencing. For example, I myself often feel like I don't want to read the news these days. I recently started writing again, but I had stopped writing columns for about 7 to 8 years. I said I would stop because it was too difficult. It's just not fun anymore. However, we also need to look at other aspects.

Let's look at the pros and cons. This is my story. Now, let's begin. Oh, can we turn up the lights here? No? If you could just turn off the lights on this side, that would be great. Just the ones on the left. Okay. To understand the changes in our politics, we first need to understand the changes in our society. The most basic point is that we have grown and changed significantly in a short period of time. This is a photo of the same place, Gwanghwamun. The one on the left is likely a photo right after the war, around 1950-53. This one is a photo from today. The time difference between then and now is only about 70 years. So, within a single lifetime, one can see both photos. Because our society has changed so rapidly, as shown in these photos, this rapid change can influence the various interests and thoughts of its members. These then manifest as various social and political conflicts. Therefore, at first glance, while we have had many successful experiences in a short period, we must also acknowledge the burdens that come with it. This is also the same. These are all photos of Seoul City Hall Plaza. This one, judging by its intact state, is likely from right after liberation or before the war, perhaps between 1945 and 1950. It looks a bit older than that.

This photo conveys a sense of busyness and activity, doesn't it? This is a photo from the 1970s, during our modernization period when economic development was in full swing. This is a photo from July 1987, during the funeral of Lee Han-yeol, a student from Yonsei University, which can be considered the peak of democratization. Political changes also occurred here. So, we've come to today from here in just 10 years, experiencing economic and political changes. I believe we have reason to be proud of what we have achieved. That should be the premise. Therefore, we need to consider how to take the next step from our current stage. Right now, it's chaos everywhere you go. As for cultural aspects, you probably know more than I do, but personally, about 10 years ago, I...

I received a call from Finland. It wasn't from a university in Helsinki, but from a university in a smaller city outside Helsinki. They asked me to give a special lecture on Korea. So, I went. One lecture was on democratization, and the other was on the candlelight protests. Finland's total population is only 5 million. It wasn't Helsinki, but a nearby city. I wondered how many people would attend a lecture on Korea there. I expected maybe twenty or thirty graduate students. I went with a personal agenda, honestly. I wanted to see the aurora more than give the lecture. I thought, 'Let's finish quickly and go see the aurora.' So, I went with that mindset, thinking, 'Even if only one person attends, I'll give my best lecture.' But the lecture hall was filled to this extent. I was so surprised. I asked about it, and they mentioned BTS. This was before BTS became widely known in Korea; they were known as Bangtan Sonyeondan. I vaguely recalled hearing about BTS...

I had never been to Finland, but I received contact from Finland. It wasn't from the university in Helsinki, but from a university in a smaller city a bit further away. They asked me to give a special lecture on Korea, for two days. So I went. One lecture was on democratization, and the other was on the candlelight protests. Finland's population is only about 5 million. It wasn't Helsinki, but a neighboring city, and I wondered how many people would attend a lecture on Korea. I thought perhaps seven or eight graduate students would be there. But I had a personal motive for going. Honestly, I wanted to see the aurora more than give the lecture. I thought, 'I need to finish the lecture quickly and go see the aurora.' With that mindset, I went, thinking, 'Even if only one person shows up, I'll give my best lecture.' But the room was filled to this extent with students. I was so surprised. I asked them, and that's when I first heard of BTS. This was before BTS's name became widely known in Korea; they were known as Bangtan Sonyeondan. Roughly, BTS...

...and I wondered if it was Bangtan Sonyeondan. What could I do? Fortunately, I had some exposure through my daughters who liked them. When I said 'Bangtan Sonyeondan,' they got very excited. That was almost 10 years ago. Much faster than us, right? This past summer, or rather, this past winter in October, I visited California for a while, and there were an enormous number of Korean cars. This will only increase, of course, not just in terms of cars but also politically. But what I want to say is, especially concerning cases like Ban Ki-moon or the G2, it's difficult to argue that we have a significant voice in the international community solely based on our economic standing.

In other words, even if Ban Ki-moon were a brilliant diplomat, could he become UN Secretary-General if his country were, for example, Myanmar, known for human rights oppression? It would be extremely difficult. It's fundamentally difficult. This means that, conversely, we must acknowledge that we have significantly grown in terms of adhering to universal norms that the international community accepts, such as freedom, human rights, and democracy. Therefore, what we can widely promote internationally includes not only culture, science and technology, and the role of corporations, but also the changes in our political system, which I believe is very important. I once went to Vietnam for a seminar on a different topic. It was around the time when Korean content was starting to gain popularity, and TV cameras and reporters were there asking why Korean dramas were so interesting. I didn't know what to say. What I wanted to say at the time was that it's important to have freedom of expression, that freedom is guaranteed. But given that it was a public broadcast and there might have been people from the ruling party, I couldn't say that. Anyway, that's how it is. So, it's related to the changes in our society. Although our economy has improved significantly, compared to your parents' generation, or even the generation above them...

...asked if the dramas were interesting. I didn't know anything about them, so I couldn't say anything. What I wanted to say then was that freedom must be guaranteed, that freedom of expression is important. But there might have been people from public broadcasting or political parties present, so I couldn't say that. That's what I remember. So it's related to the changes in our society. Economically, we've become very well-off, but it's only slightly better than your parents' generation.

...people who attended elementary school in the 1950s or up to the early 1960s ate a lot of flour and powdered milk sent from the U.S. They survived on that. People who have those memories are now living in a country like this. In terms of purchasing power, we have already surpassed Japan. Now, I'd like to talk about something else. In what context did we bring about these changes? Specifically, what political changes have occurred, what were the achievements, and what problems are we facing now? Until what time is this session?

Until 10 PM? Okay, understood. When I hold the microphone, I tend to ramble. Alright, let's move on. The Third Wave of democratization, as you know, was a global trend, not just in Korea. It began first in three Southern European countries: first, Franco died in Spain; then, military rule ended in Portugal; and Greece also transitioned. So, three countries in continental Europe, in Western Europe, achieved democratization. Interestingly, cultural elements can have an impact. When Spain and Portugal democratized, it influenced South America. Many countries in South America were affected. While we will discuss our own situation later, we were influenced by the global trend. After South America, do you know which Asian country democratized first? Take a guess. Which country would be most culturally impacted by Spain or similar nations? It was the Philippines. The ousting of Marcos in the Philippines was the beginning, and it spread to neighboring countries like Indonesia, influencing them. We also had our own internal factors, but we achieved democratization around the same time. With the lifting of martial law, it spread to the Asian region. A few years later, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, communist regimes also democratized. Then, a few years later, South Africa, notorious for apartheid, also achieved democratization, symbolized by Nelson Mandela. So, this trend occurred globally over several decades. Francis Fukuyama even declared the end of history, expecting the world to converge towards liberal democracy. There was also a sense of anticipation. For reference, the first wave, this is the third wave, was described by Huntington, a Harvard professor, in his book. The first wave was the process of expanding political rights, which were initially held only by kings, nobles, or religious leaders. This included granting rights to women and those without property. The second wave involved people in former colonial countries gaining political rights after independence, having been denied them under imperialism. And this third wave occurred during this period. So, we also rode this wave. To some extent, this continued until the Third Wave. However, after the Yusin regime, from 1972 to 1987, we were under an almost complete authoritarian regime. Then, changes began to occur here, as I mentioned earlier. It was a period of change, wasn't it? Like Fukuyama's prediction.

Now, about 30 years have passed. Thirty years have passed. Many countries democratized around the same time. So, how are they doing now? Let's see. Are they all maintaining their democratization and enjoying deeper democracy? We can discuss this. However, surprisingly, not many countries are doing well.

The Economist magazine publishes a Democracy Index annually. I'll show it to you later. It divides countries into four categories: full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime (a mix of the two), and authoritarian regime. We are currently in the 'full democracy' category. We are in it, and there aren't many countries in this category.

Here it is. Here it is. It shocked many people, and although that person is still running for president, the attack on the U.S. Capitol was a tremendous shock to many. And it happened in the United States. Democracy can be challenged or threatened at any time. This is it. This photo. At the time, I had a student from the U.S., and she was devastated. She couldn't speak. It was a shocking memory. So, we have been doing well, but let's briefly evaluate how well we have done. What is important? Fundamentally, the most important thing is that the norms themselves are observed. The rules of the game are continuously followed, and there is a consensus that the system, despite its flaws, is worth maintaining. So, the most crucial aspect is...

What's being reported now, including what happened yesterday, is related to this. The Economist, a British magazine, publishes an annual index called the Democracy Index. I'll show it to you in a bit; the report for this year and last year hasn't been released yet. The Democracy Index divides countries into four categories: 'Full Democracy,' 'Flawed Democracy,' 'Hybrid Regime' (which is considered a mix of the two), and 'Authoritarian Regime.' We are classified as 'Full Democracy.' We are in that category, and there aren't many such countries.

...whether there have been attempts to overthrow the system. Whether through riots, military force, or organized political parties. But there have been no such attempts, right? No such attempts. Is a coup possible now? A coup is unlikely, right? A coup is difficult. The fact that we even hear the term 'coup' is rare. After Roh Moo-hyun became president, I attended a seminar where a very elderly gentleman, who was very interested in politics and had a loud voice, asked a strange question. He said, 'What is the military doing now? The military should step in and take over.' Everyone was taken aback. I was in front, so I thought, 'What should I do?' But...

...the situation passed easily. Many people there burst out laughing at the question. It became quite comical. The gentleman, embarrassed, stopped listening and left. Since hearing that, I haven't heard anyone talk about a coup. It's difficult, I think. One very important aspect is civilian control. In Thailand, for example, there have been two coups in the last ten years. Opposition parties, while facing various difficulties, have not secured a large number of votes or entered parliament in significant numbers, even in election scenarios where they pose a substantial challenge to the system.

This was also influenced by regional factors. Protests and riots... well, there are always protests everywhere. There are so many that it's bothersome. Even large-scale events like the candlelight vigils were not riots; they did not involve violence. This is a significant difference. So, the norm that power must be seized through elections has become clear. That is very clear. Last time, the margin was only 0.73%. Before that, in the Kim Dae-jung vs. Lee Hoi-chang election, it was 1.6%. The margins were very small. So, this was accepted. The defeated party accepted the election results. This was also the case this time. The smallest vote margin was in the 1963 presidential election between Park Chung-hee and Yun Posun, with a difference of 150,000 votes. This time, it was 270,000 votes, which is 150,000, the smallest. So, while there are many debates about the rule of law, freedom, and human rights, they are generally observed within the broad framework. This is the Democracy Index. There are five categories here. These are evaluations by people, experts, and those involved. The first is about the fairness of the political process and whether pluralistic competition is maintained. The second is about the effectiveness of government operations and governance. This includes things like...

Right, this was influenced by regional dynamics, and also by protests and riots. Protests happen everywhere, all the time. There are so many that it's bothersome. While there were large-scale events like the candlelight protests, they weren't riots; they didn't involve violence. That's a very significant difference. So, the norm or rule that power must be seized through elections has become clear. It's very clear. Our election margin was very narrow, 0.73%, but even before that, in the Kim Dae-jung vs. Lee Hoi-chang election, it was 1.6%, which was also very small. Very small. So, this outcome was accepted; the loser accepted the election results. This time, too, the smallest vote margin was in the 1963 presidential election between Park Chung-hee and Yun Posun, by about 150,000 votes. This time it was 270,000. The 150,000 margin was the smallest. Regarding the rule of law and human rights, there are many opinions, but in the broad sense, it has improved.

...political participation. How is it guaranteed? Political culture. This area has significantly declined. Based on the 2022 data, it has dropped compared to before. This is the biggest drop. This relates to polarization, the acceptance of differences, and conflict resolution within political culture. This has declined. And then there are civil liberties. So,

Overall, the average score across these five categories must be over 8.0. A score above 8.0 places a country in the 'flawed democracy' category. A score of 8.01 or slightly above 8.0 is required for 'full democracy.' This survey includes 167 countries annually. Surprisingly, not many countries fall into the 'full democracy' category. As you can see, 24 countries. Sometimes it's around 20. We barely made it this time. It was much better than last time. We were even higher than Japan then, but it has dropped significantly since then. This has decreased.

So, overall, it has increased significantly. The United States is a flawed democracy, as you can see. This has also decreased, indicating severe polarization. Government operations have also weakened due to intense partisan conflict. Out of 167 countries, North Korea was overwhelmingly last for a very long time, but it has been surpassed. Afghanistan is now 167th, Myanmar 166th, and North Korea 165th. It's not that we've improved by working hard, but others have fallen further. This is the V-Dem survey from the University of Gothenburg's Department of Political Science in Sweden. Here, they rank the top 10, although they only list 21 here. Anyway, it's there. So, you might think this doesn't resonate with you, and that's understandable. But it's the same for other countries. Are people in other countries happy? This is because last time...

...we were much higher, around 10th place, about ten years ago. I remember showing this chart during a lecture somewhere. A Spanish friend raised his hand and said, 'I can't believe it. I lived in Korea for two years and never met anyone who said Korean politics was good or well-functioning. How can you be ranked higher than us?' We were higher than Spain then. I was taken aback. I asked him, 'Are you satisfied with your country's politics? Do you think your country's political system is truly excellent?' He said, 'No.' So, it's not like that. What we can see now is an evaluation of how democracy functions as a system. There must be things we haven't resolved, right? We will discuss that next. Fundamentally, among the countries that rode the Third Wave, we are considered a successful case. We should take pride in that. There aren't many such countries now, especially with the 'democratic backsliding' that is frequently discussed. Many countries have actually regressed. As a reference, Turkey, now officially Türkiye, democratized in the past. In 2016, I was the president of the Korean Political Science Association. We were scheduled to hold the annual International Political Science Association (IPSA) World Congress in Istanbul. We had prepared everything, but two months before the congress, the venue was suddenly changed to Poland, to a small city called Poznań. The reason for the change was that the country was beginning to transition towards an authoritarian regime. Intellectuals critical of the government were being dismissed from their jobs, or even detained. Therefore, we decided it was inappropriate to attend and canceled our participation. Personally, when we advertised for a position in Middle Eastern politics in our department, a scholar from Turkey was selected.

However, it was winter, and they were supposed to arrive in January. We didn't hear from them. All the processes were complete, and we had informed them. But they didn't contact us. When we couldn't reach them, we inquired through the embassy. It turned out that this person had made critical remarks about the democratic backsliding in Turkey. Consequently, they were not allowed to leave the country and could not come. This person did not get the position. There are many such countries now. For example, in Hungary, the Central European University, which was established in the city, had its humanities and social sciences departments abolished. It's likely that such situations are more common than we think.

In our case, as I mentioned earlier, there is a possibility of success. Instead of constantly trying to break the system, we have largely engaged in competition within the system, focusing on central competition. This has weakened recently, which is why polarization has become a problem. Furthermore, changes in administration, if there were political elites existing outside the system who were resistant to it, could have posed a threat or a source of instability. However, most of these resistant elites have now entered the system. This includes the student activists who led the anti-Yushin movement, the 386 generation, and even the current 386 activists. They have all entered the system. The system has absorbed them all. Therefore, this has led to elite circulation and other developments. Now, what is problematic, or rather, what is the issue? In terms of party politics, there are two main problems, universally. As Sartori also stated, one is when there are too many political parties, leading to fragmentation, making it difficult to form a majority. The other is when parties with irreconcilable positions emerge, leading to polarization. If party polarization or fragmentation occurs, the political system cannot be stable. However, Korea, at this sensitive transitional stage towards consolidation, has been very cautious. External elites have all entered the system.

And there were either too many parties or anti-system parties. For example, student activists initially had thoughts like 'Let's overthrow it and create a new constitution' or 'Let's start anew.' On the other hand, there were those who thought, 'What democracy? Let's go back to a stable military dictatorship.' Therefore, it was impossible to form extreme parties on either side, and even if they were formed, they failed.

As I mentioned, there was a possibility of success, so rather than continuously trying to break the system, there was a lot of competition within the system, what we call 'core-centric competition.' This has weakened recently, which is why polarization has become a problem. Also, changes in government... If there were political elites who existed outside the system, particularly those resistant to the system, and existed as a separate group, they could have been a threat to the system or a source of instability. However, most of those resistant elites have come into the system. This includes the student activists, starting from those who protested against Park Chung-hee's Yushin regime, up to the 386 generation, and even those who were active in the 80s and 90s. They have all entered the system.

The system has absorbed them all. This facilitated elite circulation, among other things. Now, what's problematic, or perhaps noteworthy, is in party politics. The worst scenarios in party politics are two things, and this is true everywhere. Sartori said the same thing. One is when there are too many parties, too many parties to form a majority. This is called fragmentation. When fragmentation occurs, it's bad. You need an appropriate number of parties; too many parties are also problematic. The other is when parties with irreconcilable positions emerge, leading to polarization. If party polarization or fragmentation occurs, the political system cannot be stable. Korea, at this sensitive time of transition towards consolidation, is in a situation that requires extreme caution. The external political elites have all...

...entered the system. And then, there were either too many parties or anti-system parties. For example, student activists, from before, had thoughts like 'Let's overthrow it and create a new constitution,' or 'Let's start anew.' Many people had such ideas. On the other hand, there were those who thought, 'What democracy? Let's overthrow it and return to a stable military dictatorship.' So, they couldn't form parties with such extreme views on either side. Even if they tried to form parties, they failed. Therefore...

Therefore, although there were issues in the early stages of stable leadership, perhaps due to regional factors, in terms of party politics, it has been managed in a form of moderate multi-party system. Currently, there are fewer parties than before. The depoliticization of the military is another long story. First, the personal courage of YS was important. He made changes within fifteen days of becoming president. When a new president is elected, even if you didn't vote for them, there's an expectation. And there's the authority of a president elected through legitimate procedures. Also, since it had only been fifteen days, there was no reason for disappointment yet. So, with high expectations, he made crucial military appointments. These included positions like the commander of the Capital Defense Command, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the head of the Defense Security Command. These were positions that the core members of the 'Hana-hoe' group aspired to. YS reorganized them. It was very difficult to resist that at the time, for various reasons. So, YS played a significant role.

Another point is that the military rule in Korea, meaning the entire military establishment, cannot be considered as having ruled. Especially in the Republic of Korea, it was the rule of a faction, the 'Hana-hoe' and the new military, which largely overlapped with the military. So, it was the rule of a military faction. How many people who considered themselves capable and influential soldiers, but were not part of 'Hana-hoe,' faced disadvantages in terms of positions and promotions? These disadvantages in positions and promotions were a major cause of the 5.16 coup, and they were also the most significant cause of the 12.12 incident. The desire to expel the incompetent seniors and take their positions was the most crucial point of the 12.12 incident.

I've seen many movies about it, and I have a lot to say about them, but time is limited. Another point is that in our case, economic growth and democracy went hand in hand. I am planning to publish a book on the 5th Republic around the end of April. In it, I argue that, following Lipset's theory, economic growth, the expansion of the middle class, the increase in the educated population, and urbanization have significantly influenced democratization in Korea. This is supported by data and other evidence. Also, in our case, social mobility, or class mobility, has remained open. This means that within a single generation, someone could rise to prominence.

Starting with nothing, perhaps just a straw bag, they could become the richest person in Korea. Even if not, most people could achieve a certain level of growth by working hard and studying diligently to go to university and get a job. That was the era. There was also a strong belief in social mobility. In other words, the boundary between exploitation and being exploited was not clear in our case. This is closely related to why Korea lacks a class-based party. The situation in Korea is entirely different from the stages of industrial revolution, economic growth, and modernization in the West. Opportunities remained open. In the West, class is often inherited. If a father is a laborer, the son is likely to be a laborer, and the grandson too. Have you seen the movie 'Billy Elliot'? In the movie, Billy's father is a miner, and his older brother also works in the mine. That's not unusual. That's what we call class. In our case, it wasn't like that then.

And so on. The administration worked diligently. Therefore, after democratization, let's move on quickly. The political flow after democratization. I believe that the systems that have been established in our society today, apart from personal opinions, were created during the Park Chung-hee era. This is an undeniable fact. This includes visible elements like POSCO and the Gyeongbu Expressway, but also less visible systems such as education, the military, and administration. Many systems were established during the Park Chung-hee era. The problem is that we seem to be stuck there, unable to progress further. In 1995, The Economist featured a special report on Korea. It included a session titled 'The House that Park Built.' I found that title very resonant, and I've used it often since then. He built a house, but not a magnificent one. He lacked money, technology, and people, so he built it through sheer effort, perhaps by acquiring materials somehow. He built a rudimentary house. After the house was built, with the subsequent democratization and political changes, it became apparent that the house was too old. It had drafts, leaks, and pests. So, it needed renovation. Therefore, the post-democratization flow was essentially about how to renovate the house that Park Chung-hee built, addressing political, economic, and various other issues, starting with the most visible ones. This began with constitutional amendments.

I believe the twenty years from Roh Tae-woo, Kim Young-sam, Kim Dae-jung, to Roh Moo-hyun were a process of renovating the house Park Chung-hee built. This was also a process of political and democratic consolidation. They renovated the house significantly. There's much to discuss about this, but let's move on. Each president, after being elected, seems to promise everything, but by the end of their term, they are all considered failures. But why have we progressed like this, when the GDP was around $7,000 or $5,000-$6,000 at the time of democratization? The presidents who followed were all considered failures, yet we have achieved this. This doesn't make sense, does it? I believe each president played their role. Especially President Roh Tae-woo, his 'Nordpolitik' alone opened up half of Korea's diplomatic possibilities. Let me briefly mention this and move on.

President Roh Tae-woo briefly served as Minister of Home Affairs under Chun Doo-hwan, and then served as Minister of Sports for a long time. The role of the Minister of Sports at the time was not just about promoting national sports, but more importantly, about successfully hosting the Olympics. We had secured the bid. This initiative began during the Park Chung-hee era. After Park Chung-hee's death, Chun Doo-hwan revived it. Amidst skepticism from bureaucrats about failure, it proceeded. It was an eight-year process. The 1980 Olympics were held in Moscow. At that time, Reagan was the U.S. president, and the Soviet Union was considered the 'evil empire.' Therefore, Western countries did not participate in the Moscow Olympics under pressure, and it was held ineffectively. History is ironic. The 1984 Los Angeles Olympics were boycotted by the Soviet Union in retaliation. Consequently, Eastern Bloc countries did not participate in the LA Olympics. So, both were incomplete. The 1988 Olympics were held in a divided country. Even with limited diplomatic relations. However, the people of the Republic of Korea felt compelled to make it a success. It was suggested that Roh Tae-woo, likely to be the next president, should take charge. Roh Tae-woo utilized this opportunity and actively pursued it. Furthermore, the economic difficulties in the Eastern Bloc at the time, combined with Korea's economic growth, led to the development of 'Nordpolitik.' What was the most effective event for introducing Korea to foreign viewers during the Olympics? Perhaps archery. But we needed to introduce our society. Marathon was effective because it's difficult to fake. You can build a stadium and make it look good within a few hours. But a marathon requires two hours of continuous broadcast. So, it started from the Olympic Stadium in Jamsil and...

...ran along the newly built Olympic Expressway, named after the Olympics. It went up to Gwangbok and then back down. So, the foreign athletes were the first to use the Olympic Expressway. Thus, it began. After twenty years of renovating the house, this is a survey I conducted in 2006 during President Roh Moo-hyun's term. In 2002, I asked what people wanted, and then, what they wanted most now.

The answers differed. The red bars represent the biggest changes. In 2002, the issues were political reform, party politics, democratization, historical reckoning, and the eradication of authoritarian legacies and corruption – all political issues. But by 2006, the focus had shifted to global issues, real estate, education, economic growth, and livelihood concerns. So, for twenty years, the focus was on political issues, but after that, people began to think that these had progressed sufficiently. This was when we should have changed. President Roh Moo-hyun said, 'I want to be a pioneer of this era, but I feel like the youngest child of the previous generation.' I believe that was a very accurate expression. Therefore, I believe we should have changed after that, but I still feel that it is delayed. Since then, there has been no fundamental change, and the world feels stifling because nothing changes. This power should come from the political sphere, but it is not emerging now.

Therefore, the demand for change has been raised for a long time, but it has not gained traction. As a result, there is a lot of dissatisfaction, especially among young people. The dissatisfaction with the political system is over half, and pessimism is high. I also found a survey from a few years ago: 'The Age of Anger,' conducted in 2011. I suspect the results would be similar today. It's not just the age of anger; it's been a long time. Something is stuck and cannot move forward. Our society is stagnant. This power should come from politics. So, I still feel it hasn't changed. It doesn't seem to matter who becomes president. When Moon Jae-in first became president, I thought Park Geun-hye, personally, despite her absence, seemed somewhat vindictive, and I thought her authoritarian style might stem from that. But Moon Jae-in, on the other hand, gave the impression of a friendly neighbor. He wasn't a bad person personally. But the way the country was run and the results were the same. So, ultimately, it's not a matter of people, but a matter of the system. We need to change it. In the end, those called conservatives and those called progressives all come from the same background and share the same memories. They seem like twins. Looking at the results, they are ultimately doing the same thing. Change is needed. So, much has changed.

Therefore, fundamental changes in our perception of the role of the state and our overall governance system are now needed, but this is not happening, in my opinion. You may not know this, but I experienced this when I was young. Your background is different; you are from a developed country, while I am from a developing country. In the developing country era, something like this was necessary. You see this poster everywhere? It was posted in classrooms. You attended elementary school, but I attended 'Gukmin Hakkyo' (People's School). Behind the classroom door, there was a poster like this. It outlined the 5-year economic development plan, showing what would be achieved in 5 years.

It depicted building factories, dams, and bridges. This was visualized and communicated to the public. I accidentally found this image while searching on Google. I was so happy to see it, like meeting an old friend. I zoomed in and looked closely. What I realized was that back then, if they drew a picture, it would be realized within five years. That's not the case now. This could only happen in an authoritarian regime. For example, the Gyeongbu Expressway construction began in February 1968 and was completed in 2 years and 5 months. President Park visited West Germany and met with Korean nurses and miners dispatched there, having an emotional reunion. He thanked them. He also toured the Autobahn and thought, 'Let's build something like this.' However, Korea's budget at the time...

...I asked them again, and the answers changed. This red one is the biggest change. In 2002, the issues were political reforms, party democratization, liquidation of the past, elimination of authoritarian legacies, and anti-corruption—political issues. But by 2006, compared to the world, issues like real estate, education, economic growth, and livelihood began to emerge. So, for 20 years, the focus was on political issues, but after that, people began to think that these had been sufficiently addressed. It was around this time that we should have changed. President Roh Moo-hyun said, 'I want to be a president of this era, but I feel like I'm the youngest child of the previous era.' I believe that was a very accurate expression. So, I think we should have changed after that, but I still feel that things are lagging. Despite the fundamental changes that should have occurred since then, the world feels stagnant, unchanging. That momentum should come from the political sphere, but it's not coming now...

...So the demand for change, which was raised long ago, is not gaining traction. As a result, there's a lot of dissatisfaction, especially among young people. The rate of disagreement is very high, over half saying they are dissatisfied with the political system. And it's very pessimistic. While searching, I found a survey from a few years ago that already indicated this: 'The Era of Anger' in 2011. I suspect the current survey would yield similar results. Isn't this an era of anger? This 'Era of Anger' has been around for a while. It seems something is stuck, unable to move forward. Our society is stagnant. That momentum needs to come from politics. So, I still feel like things are not changing. It doesn't seem to matter who becomes president. When Moon Jae-in first became president, I personally thought Park Geun-hye, before her, had a somewhat vindictive demeanor. Perhaps her personal style...

...made her seem more authoritarian. But Moon Jae-in, in contrast, had a very friendly, neighborly impression, and his personal character wasn't bad. But it turned out the same. The way the country was run and the results were ultimately the same. Therefore, it's not a problem of the person, but a problem of the system that needs to be changed. Ultimately, those called conservatives and those called progressives are all from the same generation and have the same memories. They are like twins. Looking at the results, they are doing the same things. Change is needed. So, things have changed a lot.

So, fundamentally, a change in our perception of the role of the state and our overall governance system is needed, but I believe it's not happening. You might not know this, but I experienced this when I was young. It's different for you; you are from a developed country, and I am from a developing country. It's a bit different. In the developing country era, something like this was needed. You can see it posted everywhere—at schools, on the back walls of classrooms. You are all elementary school graduates; I am a primary school graduate. It was posted on the back wall of classrooms. It stated the economic development plan for a specific number of years and depicted what the country would look like in five years. For example, here...

...we will build a factory, here a dam, here a bridge. They would visualize this and inform the public. I happened to find one of these images while searching on Google. I was so happy, like meeting an old friend. I enlarged it and looked closely. As I looked, I realized something. Back then, when they drew a picture, it would become a reality in five years. That's not the case now. What made that possible? Well, perhaps it was the authoritarian regime. For example, the Gyeongbu Expressway started construction in February 1968 and was completed in July 1970, taking 2 years and 5 months. President Park Chung-hee visited West Germany. He met the nurses and miners we had sent there and had an emotional reunion. He thanked them. He also toured the Autobahn. He thought, 'Let's try to build something like this.' But our national budget at the time...

...did not have the funds for an expressway. The cost was nearly equivalent to one year's national budget. So, they had to find ways to build it. Speeding up the construction was crucial. It was completed in just 2 years and 5 months. Nowadays, 2 years and 5 months might not even be enough for land acquisition. At that time, after just 2 years and 5 months, people would say, 'Wow, it's progressing so fast!' But back then, it was already finished. So, at the ribbon-cutting ceremony, Chung Ju-yung was present, and while he was cutting the ribbon, the final work was being done in Busan. They'd say, 'How many hours left? About four more hours.' They'd push harder.

During that era, the state was the designer. In the developmental state era, the state, with its strong autonomy, led all societal sectors, drawing up plans and executing them. That was the era. At that time, the bureaucrats were competent, like executives and managers in Park Chung-hee Inc. But that's not the case now. The private sector is now much more efficient than the state. However, the state still tries to lead. Of course, setting goals and pursuing them is the role of politics, but excessive intervention in details, such as financial policy, is still prevalent. This has not changed. So, the issue in Korea is not about big government versus small government, but rather...

...when we talk about this, it often turns into an ideological debate, with the left favoring big government and the right favoring small government. Korea's problem is a strong government. Since 1945, the system we inherited was a strong state, and this continued through the war, economic development, and authoritarian rule. Thus, the strong state has persisted. Its efficiency has diminished, but its legacy and effects remain. This is the former Government Complex Seoul building, formerly called the Central Government Complex. It evokes a sense of that era. That is the state we inherited. So, initially, we had a very strong state. It still hasn't changed. For example, the Ministry of Education. In the past, Korea was in a catch-up phase, following a developmental model. Therefore, education only needed to equip people to follow what others had already created. They just needed to read diligently, learn math, and follow the established standards.

That was the role of the Ministry of Education, then called the Ministry of Education and Culture. Now, the situation is different, and we need to lead the way. However, the Ministry of Education still has a significant role, especially in controlling universities. The primary and secondary education is handled by the education offices, and future planning is managed by the National Education Council. Therefore, the Ministry of Education is now primarily responsible for universities. Although it has somewhat improved recently, matters related to education still retain outdated vestiges. Therefore, what I want to say is that the power to drive change effectively and efficiently ultimately lies with politics. Politics must draw a picture of the future, persuade people about the direction we should take and why we need to change, gain consensus, and mobilize that consensus to drive change. However, this is not happening effectively. So,

So, when ruling like an emperor, it's called resistance, and when it ends, it's called failure. This is what we usually see, and it doesn't seem to change much. At least during the terms of the last two presidents, Korean society didn't change significantly. Whether it was Park Geun-hye's five years or Moon Jae-in's five years, our society doesn't seem to have changed much. The problem arises, and it's still happening now. Under the current five-year single term system, the policies of the previous president are generally negated.

This is true even for presidents from the same party. So, when I entered the administrative branch during Park Geun-hye's presidency, after Lee Myung-bak's term ended, I attended a meeting and found something interesting. The word 'green' had completely disappeared. They had established many things related to it, but even though Park Geun-hye and Lee Myung-bak were from the same party, this happened. Later, I met someone who worked there and asked about the 'creative economy.' I asked if results would come out so soon after its initiation, and regarding 'green growth,' I mentioned that much had been invested and many achievements made during Lee Myung-bak's five years.

I suggested that they could have incorporated it into the 'creative economy' by simply renaming it, perhaps 'Green Creative Economy' or 'Blue Creative Economy,' and then let it be. That would have been logical. Then, a professor said, 'Your point is valid, but the atmosphere inside is not conducive to discussing such things.' It was gone. Everything was overturned. Most of it, except for what was legally established, was abolished. This is what happened. For example, during the MB administration, there was 'resource diplomacy.' Resources fluctuate in price, rising sharply at times and plummeting at others. However, from the perspective of securing them in the long term, MB, being a shrewd businessman, pursued it. But then it was all overturned. And then, they started digging to see if there was any corruption involved in resource diplomacy.

It was all overturned. Although it's a five-year term, the first year is usually amateurish, leading to many trial-and-error attempts. Let's say it's about six months, or at most a year. And the last year is always a lame duck period, right? In the last year, everyone is focused on the next presidential election, so they say goodbye and move on. They are not interested. Only the incoming president is interested. So, they effectively govern for three and a half years. If something is established within these three and a half years, then national change can occur. Nowadays, people are constantly urged to marry and have children, but for that to happen, there need to be visible long-term changes for people to follow. Science and technology policies are similar. Many aspects are the same. People might think, 'What if I buy a house now, and then the next administration raises taxes significantly?' This is what happens. Problems are not solved because things don't change. Why did I bring this up? Anyway, for 10 years, my observation has been that this is the only thing that happens. After 10 years, you'd expect some accumulation, but it's not even close. Things don't change. Ultimately, because many things are only partially addressed, things remain in a state of superficial maintenance.

The world feels stagnant because nothing changes. Voices are loud, and there are demands for change, and it seems like everyone understands, but real power is not applied. The existing order is not significantly disrupted, and things are just passed on to the next term. Then, a new president comes in, and the cycle continues. So, the president cannot do this. There is no time. Another problem we have now is the lack of presidential candidates. I truly believe that there is no person who, from the bottom of their heart, I can think of as a truly outstanding president, someone who will save the nation. They probably don't even think so themselves. They became president by chance, unprepared. But the previous presidents, whether we personally preferred them or not, were individuals who would be very difficult to dismiss as unqualified for the presidency. People like Syngman Rhee, Park Chung-hee, Kim Young-sam, and Kim Dae-jung – it's hard to say they weren't presidential material, isn't it? They prepared for a long time and demonstrated political prowess.

These individuals emerged suddenly. And if they are in parliamentary politics, they are easily criticized as being tainted. They are easy targets for criticism. Those outside the system, who don't engage in it, are seen as pure. Consequently, individuals with no political experience continue to be involved in politics. This is an unprecedented situation in our political history. A president with no political or parliamentary experience, and a first-term opposition leader who entered through a by-election. This is bound to be the worst kind of politics. People like YS and DJ had decades of experience. They knew how to solve problems. In countries where passionate party members outside the system dictate terms, first-termers do not have loud voices. It's a ridiculous system. They lack experience and don't understand how politics works. Politics has deteriorated significantly. And these individuals, like Ahn Cheol-soo, who has considerable experience now, but when he first appeared around 2000, or in the 2012 presidential election...

What did Ahn Cheol-soo know? Nobody knew. He became a savior who would rescue the nation after appearing on 'Mureupak Dosa' once and 'Healing Camp' twice. At that time, the approval rating for Ahn Cheol-soo was high among 20-year-olds. I asked the students in my class to raise their hands if they supported Ahn Cheol-soo. Quite a few did. I asked them, 'If Ahn Cheol-soo becomes president, how will economic policy change?' They replied, 'I don't know, but he has run a company, and he has experience with Samsung, so he probably knows something.' I asked another student, 'If Ahn Cheol-soo becomes president, what about inter-Korean relations?' He thought for a moment and said, 'I don't know. I don't think I've heard him talk about it.' I asked another student, 'If Ahn Cheol-soo becomes president, what about higher education or educational policy?' He said, 'I don't know.'

He said, 'I don't know.' So I told them, 'It's natural that you don't know because Ahn Cheol-soo doesn't know either.' He's someone who never even considered such things before deciding to run for president. Now, perhaps Yoon Suk-yeol might be different because he has public service experience, but that's also unknown. He seems to think that because he has conducted many financial investigations, he understands economics very well. Or perhaps because he has handled many public security cases, he can handle North Korea well. I don't know. In any case, he lacks experience. He lacks the experience and the approach to problem-solving. The system is currently being run with a bureaucratic mindset, and bureaucracy is being emphasized. This might lead to efficiency, but it can also create problems regarding clear objectives. Especially when pursuing efficiency, the social conflicts and problems that arise are not well addressed.

Consequently, there are continuous missteps and problems. He was not sufficiently prepared politically. It seems unlikely that Lee Jae-myung would have fared differently. It's an unprecedented problem. Therefore, it has become difficult to find individuals with heroic narratives. I will move on from this. In the past, during monarchical times, crown princes were appointed and educated by the best scholars from an early age. However, even then, success was rare. This is also not being studied. This is different. I will skip this. Second, is it populism? This is something I've been contemplating recently. I will briefly discuss it and move on. We talked about it again yesterday. I've been thinking about it. Populism has become a global phenomenon. When we talk about populism, we often think of 'giveaways,' but this is a concept you need to understand, so I will define it and move on.

Populism, it comes from 'people,' doesn't it? The core idea is that the 'people' are pure and noble, and there is an opposing force. That force is the 'elite.' This small group of elites is greedy, corrupt, and evil. So, the elites are bad people. They are in the National Assembly, the government, corporations, and the courts. These are bad people. Therefore, they cannot be trusted with direct participation. Politicians and members of the National Assembly are all bad people, and we should participate directly. This is a very strong characteristic of populism. And then there are 'us' and 'them.' Remember when Trump said during his election campaign eight years ago, 'If I become president, I will build a beautiful, big wall'? Those beyond the wall are not 'us.' This is division. In Europe, the issue of immigrants is precisely that: 'Immigrants are not us.' Even if they have been here for three or four generations, if their skin color is different, they are told, 'You are not one of us.' This constantly provokes division. In Korea, similar rhetoric is emerging. I've spoken briefly. And then, the 'will of the people' is essential. The unified will of the people is important, so individual dissenting opinions are not favored. It's like Rousseau's concept of the 'general will.' If individuals have different opinions and oppose the collective will, it's bad. The protection of minority opinions is not important. This is where it leads. And then...

The rest is elsewhere. For example, the fifth point, which is actually very effective in Trump's populism, is 'Make America Great Again.' I said the same thing yesterday. Isn't America great now? I believe America is still a great nation. But he claims it's not great anymore. When was it great? He creates an idealized image of a past that may not have existed, a time when people were central, Christian values were strong, and family values dominated American society. Whether such a time truly existed, or perhaps not since the very early days, he evokes that memory. He constantly creates that. So, 'Make America Great Again' is the most populist slogan. And the rest are things you already know.

What about us? We are also starting to see such trends. The term 'deep-rooted evils' used in the previous Moon Jae-in administration itself implies that one side is evil. They are inherently bad people, right? And we, who punish that evil, are good and righteous people. So, the very concept of 'deep-rooted evils' inherently divides people. It's like the term 'native foreigner,' which I believe is a very negative expression. The term 'native foreigner' implies that because someone is sympathetic to Japan or disagrees with me on issues related to Japan, they do not belong to our community. They are told they should go to Japan. This can be seen as populist. Such things are starting to emerge. 'Communist' also falls into this category to some extent. And then, we have the current situation where the elite are strong, polarization is severe, we don't trust the National Assembly or politicians. This means we are very vulnerable to populism. The politics of division. In the past, our politics, while seemingly confrontational, was a politics of centripetal competition during the Kim Dae-jung era. It aimed to attract the middle class and expand support. Compromises were made when necessary. But now, politics caters to strong support bases, leading to centrifugal competition where the center cannot hold, and division accelerates. Politics exacerbates division. Consequently, in this divided situation, the political establishment cannot exercise political power. Because political power cannot be exercised...

It is increasingly being brought to the judiciary. The judiciary is now burdened with political issues that are too large to handle. It even led to the impeachment of a president. So, if the judiciary can't handle it, what political issues are left? The judicialization of politics has become severe. As a result, the judiciary must become 'our side.' They believe that if they can make the judiciary 'our side,' they will get favorable rulings. This is influencing appointments quite overtly, not just in the previous administration but also in the current one.

Right. And as a result, trust in the judiciary is declining. The president and the National Assembly have already lost partisan trust. For example, if you survey current supporters of the Democratic Party, they likely have high trust in the National Assembly. Conversely, supporters of the People Power Party might think more highly of the president. Furthermore, the judiciary, which was supposed to be a stabilizing force, is now also compromised. Our important institutions, which we have built, are now in this state. It has become very dangerous.

Therefore, change is necessary. I believe we have reached the limits of the 1987 system. We need to change it. Relying solely on one person is dangerous, and there seems to be no one with the capacity to handle such influence. Power concentrated in one person leads to extreme politics in a winner-take-all system, where the goal is to seize that power at all costs, using any means necessary to defeat the opponent. This non-shared power is making us all very tired.

Where does it go? It is taken to the judiciary, but the judiciary's problem, which should be resolved politically, has become too large to handle. It even removed a president. If the judiciary can't handle something that removes a president, what political issues are left? As the judicialization of politics became severe and occurred, the judiciary must become our side. Because we believe that if we make the judiciary our side, we will get a favorable verdict, we begin to influence it. The appointments have been quite overtly influenced, both by the previous administration and the current one.

Correct. And with that, trust in the judiciary begins to decline. The trust levels in the president and the National Assembly have already diverged based on partisan affiliation. For example, if you investigate now, Democratic Party supporters are likely to have high trust in the National Assembly, while conversely, People Power Party supporters might think better of the president. Furthermore, even the judiciary, which should have held things together, has now become like this, with all the important institutions we have established becoming like this. It has become very dangerous.

So, change is needed. This leads to the thought that the limits of our system, the 1987 system, may have been reached. So, we need to change it. Firstly, relying on one person is dangerous, and there doesn't seem to be anyone with enough influence to handle such a burden. Moreover, as power becomes concentrated in one person, the winner-take-all system, which arises from seeking that power, leads to extreme politics where one must seize everything, using all means necessary to capture the adversary. This non-shared power is making us all very weary.

So, we need to change this. Currently, for example, the 21st National Assembly has the highest proportion of seats held by the two major parties since democratization, at 95%. This has never happened before. So, politics has reached its worst state. And they continue to build upon this, escalating conflict. The absence of a mediating role is a serious issue. It's time for a third party to emerge, or for political party reform. This is what I believe. Lastly, regarding civil society, I will skip this. Finally, when discussing political reform, instead of constantly tinkering with institutions, I believe the most important aspect is the competition within our system. The core is that market competition continuously drives innovation. Why do companies like Samsung work so hard? Because there are many competitors. They cannot afford to fall behind. But in electoral politics, political competition has weakened. In most regions, the winner is already determined. There is no competition.

There is no competition. In Seoul, a few parties compete, but in the regions, it's a choice of one party. There is no competition. As a result, both major parties can win 80 or 90 seats even if they perform poorly. They have no problem surviving. They are not desperate. Therefore, they don't fail. But if they were truly at risk of failing, falling behind in competition, and losing the hearts of political consumers, they would face ruin. It would be very difficult for parties to operate like they do now. So, instead of imposing legal sanctions or regulations, the most important thing is how we can restore political competitiveness. How can we create an environment where diverse forms of competition emerge and new competitors can enter? I believe this is the greater core of political reform.