Lippert and democracy

By Bernard Rowan

The hubbub surrounding the knife attack on U.S. Ambassador Mark Lippert has spawned controversy. After the incident, varying political forces in South Korea have used it to rebuke political dissent and to advance political and other interests. One Korea Times story referred to the atmosphere as representing a ''masturbation nation" (March 10, 2015). I think the controversy reflects a young democracy unsure of democratic traditions.

Kim Ki-jong committed aggravated assault, at minimum, and depending on the result of the investigation, a violation of the National Security Law. Some say Kim planned and carried out the attack alone. Others suppose it reflects coordinated actions by interests opposed to South Korean policy or aligned with North Korea.

I'm going to guess that Kim's act reflects his own doings and no one else's. I'm sure some may have known of related threats, promises and boasts. However, this particular ultra-nationalist's profile and behavior reflect an extremist bent on driving opposition to North Korean policy in the South.

These days, the media enables determined individuals and groups to have their chance to dominate the news and cause a wave of popular interest. Freedom doesn't preclude this behavior. Accepting this doesn't mean excusing what Kim did.

Democracies punish dissenters who violate the laws of the land. Punishment is proportional to the offense and occurs through legal means. Any ''conspiracy" by South Korean interest groups, or parties, or by the North, also must face a proper and measured response.

Somehow, however, I think the entire hubbub reflects an over-ripened sense of shame, and perhaps a dose of opportunism. I think the incident embarrassed or shamed President Park and some Koreans. I think that's a bit much. To see the rows of Korean halmoni and ajumma demonstrating support of the United States following the incident looked like propaganda by Kim Jong-un. To read conservative commentary on the issue reminds one of typical scapegoating.

I'm glad, as I hope all reasonable people would be, that Ambassador Lippert has recovered. His nonplussed and calm reaction, as well as his polite appreciation of Korean gestures, impressed many people.

What I didn't and don't see enough of is the understanding that democracy means vulnerability. Advanced nations want firewalls, hard, soft and otherwise. They want certain security. They want to create shields against enemies of the mainstream. We equate security with technological means too much and people too little. That's not democracy. That's police thinking or military reality applied to politics, and not reasonably. That's the face of what democracies should reject.

I'm sure security experts will analyze the number of threats and violations of security best practices attending the travels of ambassadors of high profile nations in South Korea. They can adjust the security procedures and detail for the American ambassador. I think that's in order.

However, democracy means there's no hiding place. It's all too easy to find a way to attack, distract or endanger public and private leaders, officials and citizens. And more often, a determined, dissenting minority uses peaceful means to advance its interests. The majority should tolerate dissent within the rule of law.

I don't like to read the columns that displace and project Korean ills and interests onto Kim or ultra-nationalist groups, or to those who want a more conciliatory approach to the North. Just because people disagree with the majority, we won't fix anything by rebuking Kim or "the united front" in the way they do in the majority view.

I don't think conciliation with Pyongyang is in order now. However, I think Kim Ki-jong isn't the devil or the essence of evil. He's a violent individual who's broken the law. Most reject his opinions. I think he loves Korea, but not the same image of Korea that many others share.

South Koreans run risks if by their actions to punish Kim or to spurn pro-unification/pro-North activists, they forget democratic reason. They shouldn't imply that opposition to President Park Geun-hye's policy or the U.S.-South Korea alliance is tantamount to treason or evil. We may deeply disagree and find such disgusting opinions as Kim or "our turf" hold, but democracy has to tolerate dissent.

I also think the matter has intensified calls for the THAAD (Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense) system. That's unrelated! It's a military matter. Such calls reflect political opportunism at work.

South Korea hasn't been a democracy for that long. Some analysts might say it isn't fully one today. I think Korean democracy needs to intersect a fuller discussion of the importance of moments like the Lippert attack. These moments should be occasions to show the true strength of democracy. It's hardly equivalent to conventional security. Democratic strength relies on confidence in one's opinions as open to question. It relies on rejecting means of violence to respond to dissent. It relies on laws against harm and their enforcement to respond to isolated incidents. It doesn't recoil from the judicial process as slow and half-hearted pacifism.

Democratic nations should use means consistent with their ends. Their reactions to expressions of dissent, including violent ones, say a lot about how democratic their purposes and cultures want to be. Oh, and it's far easier not to be a democracy. Freedom entails vulnerability and openness to dissent.

Bernard Rowan is assistant provost for curriculum and assessment, professor of political science and faculty athletics representative at Chicago State University, where he has served for 21 years. Reach him at browan10@yahoo.com.