hankyoreh

The National Assembly passes an amendment to the Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials (CIO) Act on Dec. 10. (photo pool)

President Moon Jae-in’s approval rating has fallen below 40%, the lowest level since he took office. Some have started calling this the “beginning of the end” for his administration; others are concluding that his “concrete base has collapsed.”

As if on cue, political divisions have grown more heated. The controversy over disciplinary measures against Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-youl has been reaching fever pitch. In the National Assembly, opposition party filibusters have been neutralized to pass legislation on contentious issues such as the Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials (CIO) Act.

From the opposition parties and conservative media, we’re hearing breathless denunciations of the “legislative dictatorship” under a huge Democratic Party majority, and of the “collapse of parliamentary democracy and the separation of powers.” Is this really true? Is parliamentary democracy actually facing a serious crisis? Is the essence of the current situation a “return to a dictatorship” by an administration proclaiming democracy?

While people may differ in their perspectives, I think it’s meaningful to look back on the Franklin D. Roosevelt era in the US during the 1930s. It bears quite a few similarities to the situation in South Korea right now. Despite fierce resistance from the Republican Party, Roosevelt forged ahead with enacting laws for his New Deal policies. Republicans and other conservatives denounced the Social Security Act and National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act), two of the key pieces of New Deal legislation, as a “road to dictatorship” that would infringe upon individual freedoms. They attacked Roosevelt himself as a “dictator,” a “socialist,” a “Soviet Communist Party agent,” and even a “fascist.”

Roosevelt’s attempts to reform the US Supreme Court were the source of a particularly intense social debate. When the court ruled the New Deal legislation to be unconstitutional, Roosevelt called for doubling the number of justices in order to reflect changes in US society. His “court packing” plan was vehemently denounced as contrary to the principle of separation of powers and the system of checks and balances that was so fundamental to US democracy.

Even some Democratic members of Congress opposed it, insisting that however well-intentioned it may be, the idea of the president arbitrarily changing the judiciary would set a bad precedent. This has parallels in the recent controversy surrounding the CIO. Compared with Roosevelt’s attempts to reform the Supreme Court, the denunciations of the CIO Act as “undermining the separation of powers” seem almost quaint.

With all the controversy that was raging, the legislative efforts succeeded some of the time and failed some of the time. The idea of increasing the number of Supreme Court justices ultimately fell by the wayside amid objections from Congress. But history does not remember the Roosevelt era as a time when the “principles of democracy collapsed” and the country plunged into deep turmoil — quite the opposite.

The Roosevelt era has been described instead as a step in the US’ progression into an era of true popular democracy, where the presidential system reached a stable footing. The conservative legal scholar Robert Bork declared it to have had an important influence on the nature of the republic. This is one of the reasons Roosevelt has been named alongside George Washington and Abraham Lincoln as one of the greatest presidents in US history.

That may have to do with the conclusion that the New Deal policies and legislation that he pursued in the face of unprecedented controversy altered the US society in progressive ways. Roosevelt pushed his reforms using lawful procedures, and he received public approval through the election system. Today, South Korea’s political opposition and conservative media are denouncing the ruling Democratic Party as a “dictatorship” for using its National Assembly majority to end the filibuster and pass amendments to the CIO Act, the National Intelligence Service Act, and the Development of Inter-Korean Relations Act.

But the truly important question here is whether those laws that have now been passed can contribute to ending decades of abuse of power by prosecutors and intelligence agencies and contribute to peace on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia through the easing of inter-Korean tensions.

There are other differences from Roosevelt’s era, the most important of them being the president’s attitude. Whenever a debate erupted, Roosevelt would speak directly to the people to explain it. Facing accusations of using New Deal legislation as a tactic to win elections, he countered that it was consistent with the public interest and the principles of democracy.

In a Constitution Day address on Sept. 17, 1937, Roosevelt responded to the debate over judiciary reforms.

“The Constitution of the United States was a layman's document, not a lawyer's contract,” he said. “Clearly a majority of the delegates [who took part in the Constitution’s enactment in 1787] believed that the relation of the Court to the Congress and the Executive, like the other subjects treated in general terms, would work itself out by evolution and change over the years.”

His speech drew even fiercer objections from the opposition, but Roosevelt was not shy about sharing his thoughts with the public.

That may be the most disappointing thing when it comes to President Moon Jae-in. Amid all the heated controversy surrounding Yoon Seok-youl, we have not heard the president speak frankly as the elected leader of our country. His silence has only further confused the public amid speculation about what the president “truly wishes” and unverifiable claims about his “will.”

Now that the Justice Ministry’s disciplinary committee has reached its conclusion, Moon will hopefully speak directly to the public and offer a more detailed explanation. We’d like to hear his thoughts about why he appointed Yoon as prosecutor general in the first place, what he was expecting, whether those expectations have been met, and how he feels about the prosecutor general’s current term limits. Here’s hoping he remembers that the secret behind Roosevelt’s success with the New Deal lay in his communication with the public.

By Park Chan-su, senior editorial writer

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