 |
| Courtesy of Kristian Bjornard |
By David A. Tizzard
 |
To be the president in our age seems incredibly difficult. Social media has warped political discourse beyond recognition: Rumors, gossip, slander and just straight-up fake news fly around society with little-to-no accountability. Digital platforms are well aware that controversy and hatred garner more user interaction than nuance and thus emotions become a driving tool of conversation. Politics has become a moral conversation for many. No longer is it about policies, legislation or seeking compromise over the best methods of allocating limited resources to citizens while knowing it will be impossible to create a society in which everyone is happy. Instead, political figures are now seen as existential threats and labeled as evil rather regularly by citizens. I get enough abuse about my writing, my ideas, (and my face). I can't even imagine the psychological effects it must have on a person to be charged with leading a nation of 50 million people in the 21st century. In that sense, again, President Moon has my sympathy and respect.
An internet expression which seems to describe some elements of modern discourse is "bitch eating crackers." This is when you dislike someone so much that anything they do, irrespective of how minor or inoffensive it might be, annoys you beyond any?rational?level. The simple act of them eating crackers will cause you to be angry. People feel like that about leading Korean figures on both sides of the political aisle. So, while conscious of such views, what can we say of President Moon's five-year term in terms of his own goals and achievements?
In his inauguration speech, President Moon stated,?"We will eradicate the authoritarian presidential culture. As soon as preparations are complete, we will exit the Blue House and open an era of the Gwanghwamun presidency." Five years later, the president is still in the Blue House. Modifications have taken place and there is certainly more communication and transparency than the previous administration. However, he is now seemingly trying to prevent the man he hand-picked as prosecutor from starting his own term outside the Blue House. So do we want a president in the Blue House or not? Is this about reality or are we back to the crackers?
The era of the Gwanghwamun president didn't result in many press conferences or interactions either. President Moon had claimed, "After work, I may visit a market to exchange friendly talks with those whom I encounter. Large-scale public debates in Gwanghwamun Square are also part of my plan." Of course reality, pandemics, and social distancing means plans don't always come to fruition. However, there was not a great deal of interaction between the President and reporters. Korea remained different from many of its democratic counterparts in that respect. While other world leaders field questions from other politicians and members of the public on a weekly or regular basis, President Moon has held four New Year's press conferences, four news interviews, and two dialogue sessions with the public over the past five years. The few that he did hold seemed largely curated and with little challenging content, questions, or discussion.
President-elect Yoon, however, seems to be making a habit of eating at every small little restaurant you can think of and actually doing what President Moon promised he would. This hasn't got much coverage in the English-language press but locally it's become known as "food politics." Whether the president-elect will actually speak regularly to the people and the media once he takes office remains to be seen. But if he does, he will be acting out President Moon's stated goals.
And what of the high-level corruption President Moon was charged with eradicating from Korean politics, business and government? More specifically, those he replaced, ex-President Park Geun-hye and Samsung's Lee Jae-yong? The former was sentenced to 24 years in prison and fined nearly 17 million dollars. The latter was sentenced to five years. The candlelight revolution was seen by many citizens as the inevitable rise of the people: the overthrowing of dictatorship and the final phase of the "minjung (people)" democracy movement. Both of the aforementioned figures, however, are now at home. Park Geun-hye was pardoned in pursuit of national unity while Lee was released because his role in Samsung was deemed in the national interest. Powerful figures being released by government decree because they are influential seems to contain more echoes of the past than revolutions for the future.
President Moon also brought hope of better relations with North Korea. At PyeongChang, athletes from the two countries mirrored what they had done in the Sydney Olympics in 2000 by walking together under the blue unification flag. President Moon then shared photos of him meeting with Chairman Kim in Pyongyang, at Baekdusan, in the DMZ, and with President Trump. Engagement, support and understanding was the key to reducing military tensions. His presidency, however, will end with North Korea having blown up the joint liaison office building at Gaeseong, continuing to fire a barrage of missiles into the East Sea, and seemingly refusing to talk with Seoul.
President Moon has achieved much during his five years. His supporters will rightly point to many of his achievements. However, I'm not sure that being a man of the people, fulfilling the promise of the candlelight revolution vis-a-vis high-level corruption, or improved relations with North Korea should necessarily be counted among these. There is at least room for a nuanced discussion on the issues rather than simply parroting the narrative that these things have been achieved. Such conversation certainly doesn't mean he is a bad person nor that he failed; instead, it shows the difficulty of modern politics.
Many will see this piece as an attack on the current president or support of the incoming president-elect. It should be seen as neither. It's an attempt to put down the crackers and look at how presidential pledges and reality match-up. Our ideas and actions are driven by social media rhetoric and grand narratives disseminated by media corporations and powerful groups with an interest in various issues. I'm not immune to this and don't claim any special insight. However, the political science journals, the academic literature, and the professors discussing state affairs seem far more measured in their assessments of this latest transition in Korea's beautiful democracy than what I see online. Words matter, of course. But the reality in which we live is surely far more important.
Dr. David A. Tizzard (datizzard@swu.ac.kr) has a Ph.D. in Korean Studies and lectures at Seoul Women's University and Hanyang University. He is a social/cultural commentator and musician who has lived in Korea for nearly two decades. He is also the host of the Korea Deconstructed podcast, which can be found online. The views expressed in the article are the author's own and do not reflect the editorial direction of The Korea Times.
