Hope Institute

During the past decade, the most remarkable achievement by the reformist governments, the administrations of Kim Dae-jung and the Roh Moo-Hyun, is the fact that the government pursued and promoted development of governance by choosing self-restrictive behavior, although such trial did not make astonishing progress.

At that time, activists, experts, and theorists who represent civil society and progressive academia influenced not only national reforms, but also the work of establishing and developing public policies by participating in various national committees, or by actually working in the government. In addition, practices which offer financial support for civic groups and encourage cooperation between private and public sectors were enhanced directly and indirectly. As a result, a number of civic groups and organizations actively contributed to shaping public policies.

This was truly impressive in Korea where state-oriented policy formation, which excludes public participation, had been deeply entrenched since the authoritarian governments of the 70’s and 80’s. Some say that the Kim and Roh administrations just mimicked advanced political systems; however, their efforts need to be seen as an attempt to raise Korean politics to the level of politically advanced nations where democratic governance has already taken root.

The two administrations’ effort, in fact, was an outcome of learning from conflicts in the past and a product of political evolution. Despite democratic progress under the Roh Tae-woo and Kim Young-sam administrations, the public was not allowed to get into politics which led to countless social clashes over running the government. At that time, it was no exaggeration to say that ‘Political reform’ was that to what extent the government accepted the blueprints of reform created by civil society. In the 80’s, civil society generally demanded right to democratic freedom or right to participation in politics such as electing the president by direct suffrage or investigating deaths caused by torture. Throughout the 90’s, demands from civil society expanded to social citizenship including economic reform, then, such demands in civil society evolved into a way of forming partnerships with the government or becoming members of the government.

Although the Kim and Roh administrations had attempted to establish the foundation of systems and practices in governance, actually, results were not satisfactory enough. In particular, as mentioned above, these administrations seemed to pay attention to national innovation through recruiting talents from civil society and enhancing fiscal and political capabilities of civil society; however, the government had priority over the former, not the latter. On the other hand, the administration was still rudimentary and experimental in utilizing civil society as a quality policy producer and practitioner.

For these administrations, this might have been an inevitable choice in order meet the short-term need of improving the governance of Korea, a nation where the Executive has overwhelming and absolute influence on running the nation. In a higher-level democracy, if the status of civil society means more than a semi-governmental organization, whose status as a pillar of policy creation and practice is almost congruent with the government, then it is understandable why political reforms at that time remained at the primitive level.

Today, under the slogan of ‘elimination of the leftist,’ the Lee Myung-bak administration is implicitly and explicitly destroying rudimentary, and yet critical foundation for governance made by the previous governments. The Lee administration denies the spirit and the necessity of governance itself, and it also seems that the relationship between the state and the public needs to be the authoritarian-style under which the state orders and the market and the public obeys.

The Lee administration is destroying governance in two ways: first of all, the government stigmatizes government officials who were employed by the Government of the People (the Kim Dae-jung Government, 1998-2002) and the Participatory Government (the Roh Moo-hyun Government, 2003-2008) as Leftists, and is ousting them from important positions even before their term ends. They are also closing or reducing civil society-friendly governmental consulting bodies which were introduced by so-called “Leftists.” And the Lee administration is blocking financial assistance for civic groups and private think-tanks which play a role in producing public policies, thereby causing difficulties in finance and capabilities of civic society.

Such behavior of the current government poses a grave problem because it is not based on a long term blueprint by which democracy in Korea attains a higher level. Rather, such behavior is based on a short term political strategy with which the government represses anti-government groups and movements since the candlelight vigil which protested against the decision of importing US beef in 2008. This is proven by the fact that President Lee has never clearly explained the rationale behind his decision and how the decision is related to long term Korean democratic vision to the Korean public.

Establishing governance by enhancing civil society should not be criticized on the grounds that the leftists demand it. The idea that civil society should be improved, not the state, needs to be considered positively and actively to increase efficiency in public administration. Giving more leeway and opportunities for civil society to participate in municipal policies or central policies helps the administration to invigorate the nation and to achieve the government’s economic and social goals easily, instead of instigating civil society to be irresponsible and indifferent as it foregoes every right to the government.

From early on, most international organizations including the World Bank or the OECD have conducted researches and introduced practices to reiterate the absolute importance of governance innovation through empowering civil society to solve economic and social problems that many nations are facing.

In Europe, even business-friendly think-tanks also have emphasized that civil society, in democracy, should play an extremely vital role to bring social innovation and to produce solutions to pressing issues. On the one hand, a German think-tank, the Bertelsmann Stiftung(the Bertelsmann Foundation), which was founded by a German conglomerate, Bertelsmann AG, is criticized for being a neo-liberalistic think-tank. On the other hand, the foundation is putting considerable efforts on designing various projects and facilitating them for empowering civil society. The Bosch Group, a global leader in the automobile and machinery industry, has also established the Robert Bosch Stiftung(the Robert Bosch Foundation). The foundation is interested in governmental policies such as immigration issues and devotes its efforts to voluntary and creative empowerment of civil society.

Particularly, in Germany, participation of civil society in policy making processes is highly sophisticated, and self-restriction of the state has long been institutionalized. For instance, in diplomacy or development cooperation, political parties in Germany have also founded their own foundations, so called “Stiftung.” Such foundations maintain their own representations in developing countries around the world. They are deeply connected to parties, but they are civic groups under the form of association and foundation. Korean civic groups exert very limited influence on diplomacy and international cooperation, whereas German foundations established by political parties receive financial assistance from the government, and remain completely independent from governmental influence as capable public policy practitioners.

Even in the US where the state is not sensitive to the public good, numerous groups which have been created from grass roots movements are known to complement the government and contribute to the public good. It is also known that a substantial number of businesses are supporting their activities directly and indirectly.

The Lee Myung-bak administration would have room to maneuver in reaching its political goals by respecting democracy, if incumbents contemplated deeper and were better prepared for taking the office based on a right attitude toward history. Enhancing governance and implementing public-friendly policies do not harm economic growth and deteriorate business environments at all.

The vast majority of voters elected President Lee because they expected him to come up with more effective measures to eradicate social polarization in Korea through economic growth and prosperity, based on the premise that he will undoubtedly take over and further develop the legacy of previous governments in promoting governance, not because they did not like or support democratic governance. So far, what the Lee administration has shown the public is that it is the other way round: Doing nothing, rather than exacerbating social polarization, even further destroying democratic foundations for governance. This is totally going the opposite direction from what most of the public want. The government has kept on saying that it will indeed make Korea an advanced nation. There is something that President Lee Myung-bak and his administration should keep in mind to this end: Restoration and ongoing development of governance.

Researcher In Charge: Park Myoung Joon / mj.park@makehope.org

Translated by Hope Cori

An Era of Disruption: Challenges for Better Communication

Editor’s Note:

The Hope Institute’s <A Plaza for Dialogue That Is Opening Up Hope> is a monthly lecture series by eminent leaders with great insight into the nation’s present and future. This month we invited Jeong Gwan-yong, one of the premier debate program hosts, and he spoke under the theme, ‘An Era of Disruption: Challenges for Better Communication.

At every moment of our lives, we are involved in interpersonal communication. Talks between different social groups are important in addressing tensions. Yet substantial disruption is being witnessed in Korean society although it has one of the most powerful tools for two-way communication: the Internet. The barriers of conflicting ideas continue to stand between groups; the ruling and the opposition; the conservative and liberal; the young and old; and groups with different interests. In this regard, on June 30 the Institute held a lecture titled ‘An Era of Disruption: Challenges for Better Communication’ at the Institute’s headquarters. The lecturer was Jeong Gwan-yong, host of Korea Broadcasting System’s night time political discussion program.

Mr. Jeong has moderated over 1,900 discussions throughout his career in broadcasting. This experienced speaker began the lecture on ‘communication’ by raising a question to the audience; what is a discussion? He skillfully summed up various answers and said that we exactly knew what it was and what it was for. But ironically, it was hard to find in Korea talks that can be called “discussions;” he continued.

Ideology-centered discussions without persuasion

The speaker casually put the topic, somewhat hard to some. He explained, “Here are two people discussing what they will have for lunch. One wants to go to a new Chinese restaurant. The other wants to have seolleong-tang, ox leg bone soup, to relieve his hangover. To narrow their difference the two exchange information and build a consensus.”  “The question is,” he added, “why in Korea, formal discussions, unlike daily talks, often turn out to be verbal battles.”

He pointed out two reasons: historical grievances and ideologies. Throughout modern history some Koreans who supported Japan’s occupation during the Second World War reaped the benefit of the nation’s hasty economic growth. This unsettled issue has led to complaints in people’s hearts. That is why discussions often end up debating over historical grievances. The lecturer also said that media speaks for certain groups or ideologies with subtle distinctions between the truth and the opinion.

“A discussion is a process that requires deep understanding of the counterparts’ perspectives. It’s not about correcting wrong arguments, but facilitating information exchange and building consensus,” he explained.

Mr. Jeong emphasized the attitude to understand different stances, rather than to stage verbal attacks. “You will never be able to convince others while keeping yourself closed to the others’ opinions,” he added.

What is required now is communication

The speaker touched on the negative impacts of TV debate programs. “Debate shows have unique purposes, unlike other formal discussions, which creates structural limitations. This leads the public to misunderstand that debates must sort out the right from the wrong,” he said. “TV shows are to be shown to the unknown public. They are not to draw out agreements.”

He also said that participants try to be more aggressive to earn greater support from groups they represent. Broadcasters obsessed with ratings cast assertive panelists, which sets a misleading debate standard.

“Those who assert without listening are not communicating but stifling discussions,” he said.

He confessed that he felt inertia in Korean society where healthy debates have no room to grow. And he offered a prediction that the nation can no longer expect further development in the absence of communication. Then, what are the solutions?

Detailed discussions are needed, eliminating ‘hostile coexistence’

“We must continue to attempt to communicate,” he said, making three proposals to handle challenges of our time: Different groups must accept the presence of the others; Debates must include specialists, not generalists, to focus on detailed policy issues; Discussions must be conducted according to rules and processes.

 

He added there is ‘hostile coexistence in society, especially in politics and the media. Groups, he said, are wasting energy and resources to make criticism against others without attempting to narrow differences or persuade. His explanation went on, “’hostile co-existence means participants solely focus on dragging counterparts down without mentioning what they are doing well. The people are now wary of politicians busy condemning different parties. It’s time for both the conservative and liberal to listen to the public voice in a much more moderate manner.”

“Bipartisan discussions can help address differences, because two parties have to compete for support from centrists. Eventually common grounds can be found,” he said.

The lecture was followed by a question and answer period. One of the audience members said that a centralization of power has eliminated tools through which moderate citizens can make their voices heard. Mr. Jeong agreed and answered that further development in culture, arts and academia is needed to disperse the excessively concentrated power. 

He laid out cautious forecast for the blogosphere, an emerging alternative to the traditional media. “We need to wait and see. I now witness both hopes and despair in the cyber space. Even a greater bias is found on some blogs. Young Koreans are more emotional than their parents, so extreme blogs these days enjoy popularity. But I can see hope in the education which has greatly improved although some have worries over the younger generation who enjoys greater freedom than their previous generations who used to live under authoritarianism.
He expressed interests and support for the Institute and other think-tanks that study and develop specific policies. And this lecture provided a chance to look at the way we communicate and discuss and to explore simple, but effective alternatives

Reacher in charge: Kang-You Garam  / gradiva@makehope.org

 Translated by Hope Cori