hankyoreh

Liberty Korea Party (LKP) leader Hwang Kyo-ahn and Rep. Shim Jae-chul lead a conservative rally in front of the Sejong Center in Seoul on Jan. 3. (Yonhap News)

The word “dictatorship” left me feeling uneasy every time. “Dictatorship… that’s exactly what we have been trying to avoid…,” I heaved a bitter sigh. At first, I dismissed it as a mere metaphor, crafted for the purpose of criticizing the government. However, I began to notice that the conservative press was plastered with harsh-sounding words like “dictatorship,” “totalitarianism,” “socialism,” and [the George Orwell novel] “Animal Farm.” Is this really a dictatorship? That would undermine the entire basis of the current administration, one that was built on the tradition of fighting against dictatorship and for democracy. Conservative opponents have used words like “legal dictatorship,” “Hitler-esque totalitarianism,” and “Venezuelan leftist dictatorship” to describe the Moon Jae-in administration, but are such descriptions remotely accurate? Is the South Korean government really treating its people like animals?

Recently, the civic group South Korean Professors for Social Justice released a statement accusing the current administration of its “quasi-totalitarianism” scheme. It claimed that establishing an agency for investigating corruption by high-ranking officials, shifting to a mixed-member proportional representation system, weakening the investigatory power of the prosecution, and manipulating the justice system are all ploys to further that scheme.

This is a conscious effort to brand the Moon administration’s key moves as dictatorial. There is a difference between criticizing the administration for its wrongdoings and attacking it by calling it a dictatorship. This is more an ungrounded conspiracy theory than anything else.

A nation that protects freedom of speech to this degree cannot possibly be a dictatorship. The administration has been accused of seizing public television broadcasters to further its dictatorial control. However, the editorial shift at the public broadcasters is due to long-standing internal causes. Though one must admit, it is problematic that the public broadcasters’ editorial slant shifts back and forth with each change in administration.

The administration has been accused of replacing people who held key court posts with those who hold similar political views as the administration. However, it would be unpragmatic for the administration to appoint only those who hold opposing viewpoints. It’s no secret that former presidents Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye wreaked much havoc by manipulating the justice system. President Trump has appointed over a hundred right-wing judges to the federal bench. Of course, balance is important when it comes to appointment. Under a presidential system, however, the president will inevitably exercise some control over the allocation of judicial power.

Establishing the agency for investigating corruption by high-ranking officials and shifting to a mixed member proportional representation system have been a long-held wish of the Democratic Party. It’s not dictatorship the party wants; the Democratic Party has long been campaigning for the reform of the prosecution and the political system. Therefore, criticizing the administration from a systematic standpoint is understandable, but accusing it of plotting dictatorship is excessive.

Comparing South Korea’s administration to former Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, whose government relied on the support of the poor and anti-American populism, is nothing but an act of self-deprecation. As a nation that belongs to the “30-50 Club,” protects national security and its economy via the Korea-US alliance, and has an established tradition of democracy, South Korea shouldn’t be compared to a nation like Venezuela.

If I must say it, South Korea just happens to have a history of right-wing dictatorship. After South Korea’s liberation from Japan’s colonial occupation, it was ruled by far-right autocrats like Syngman Rhee, Park Chung-hee, and Chun Doo-hwan, and it was under their reigns that the nation descended into a decades-long dictatorship. In fact, the right-wing extremists still maintain a firm foothold in the political arena. On the other hand, the left wing has just 13 years of political power under its belt. Accusing the administration of being dictatorial should be construed as an expression of fear that the left wing will remain in power.

Such accusations of totalitarianism require more scrutiny. Claims that the court, the prosecution, and the National Assembly are all heading towards Big Brother-controlled totalitarianism belittle the integrity of our society.

However, vigilance must be taken against holding a “holier-than-thou” position and believing that “only our side represents justice and benevolence.” Difference in opinion doesn’t warrant indiscriminate attacks or exclusion. It would also pose a problem if the media and intellectuals feared online comments and censored themselves as a result. The consequences of this problem are aptly illustrated by the vitriolic pushback by Chin Jung-kwon, a South Korean critic.

It’s painful to acknowledge that former Minister of Justice Cho Kuk became an embodiment of “double standards.” The prosecution’s indiscriminate style of investigation is a big problem, but Cho is also guilty of being inconsistent. However, it’s one thing to criticize the left’s “hoiler-than-thou stance” and “double standards,” and another to call it totalitarian.

Despite pledging to rise above left-versus-right politics, many continue to exhibit partisan behavior. Claiming to “stick to facts” while criticizing the other camp by only listing their problems is paying tribute to left-right politics. Yes, it may be hard, but it’s imperative to look at both sides of the coin.

It is inaccurate to claim that President Moon Jae-in represents dictatorship and Prosecutor-General Yoon Seok-youl, justice, or the reverse. Moon, Cho, and Yoon are not infallible. Cho was a loyal servant of the candlelit protests, but his behavior has been dissatisfactory. Yoon fought against the powers that be and made some progress, but he seems to have repeatedly launched politically motivated investigations and dug into unrelated matters to nail down his suspects, as in the Cho investigation. Moon’s judgment in appointing Cho and Yoon also leaves much to be desired.

Rarely can one make the claim that one side is entirely right, and the other entirely wrong. Lingering in the grey area between the two sides isn’t an answer either. Strides must be made in the direction believed to be right, but with frequent introspection and self-evaluation. It’s questionable whether the current administration deserves the title of “candlelit administration,” but it also shouldn’t be called a dictatorship or totalitarianism.

By Back Ki-chul, editorial writer

Please direct comments or questions to [english@hani.co.kr]