hankyoreh

Members of the Shin-Kori 5

The public task force on the Shin-Kori 5 and 6 Nuclear Power Plants was disbanded on Oct. 20 after three months of operation. Based on its deliberations, the committee issued a recommendation to government on the construction of the two reactors, which have been the focus of a complex mixture of regional, environmental, and generation issues. The final opinion was that construction should be resumed, but that South Korea’s use of nuclear power should be reduced in the long term.

With both proponents and opponents of the resumption announcing their plans to accept the recommendation, the decision makes a new page in the history of conflict resolution through societal consensus. Many are now watching to see whether public deliberation – the Moon Jae-in administration’s first big experiment in deliberative democracy – will establish itself as a new model for conflict management in South Korea.

The deliberation marks the first time in the history of the South Korean democracy that a public task force, made up not of politicians or stakeholders but of 471 ordinary citizens, spent time living, studying, and deliberating together to decide on a solution to a matter of both major state policy and intense societal conflict.

Although the Moon administration announced itself as pursuing “post-nuclear policies,” it made its decision based on the group’s deliberations and discussions rather than pushing the policies at the government level or leaving the discussion to the experts. It was a first experiment with “citizen sovereignty,” allowing the public to decide policy for themselves.

“This was democratic decision-making, with citizen representatives taking part to gather mature opinions,” stressed public debate committee chairperson Kim Ji-hyeong.

Members were enthusiastic in their participation. A total of 478 of the 500 citizens who announces plans to take part attended the orientation, while 471 joined the three-day overnight debate camp – a participation rate of 94%.

“Participations in the debate were very encouraged by the fact that their findings would be reflected in government policy, and they showed a high level of focus and sincerity of the course of the debate camp,” said a committee source who observed the group’s discussions.

The emergence of the public debate committee’s activities as an issue appears to have sparked greater social interest in post-nuclear policy and the building of Shin-Kori 5 & 6 – as well as greater receptiveness to the committee’s conclusions. As a democratic procedure for discussing policy and collecting mature views from citizen representatives, public deliberation also performed a supplementary role, allowing state authority to be exercised democratically through citizens themselves.

While the issue of the Shin-Kori 5 & 6 reactors was a matter of heated debate between those supporting a resumption and those calling for a halt, the democratic decision-making process of the deliberation provided a basis and justification for “submitting” to its recommendations. The Korea Federation for Environmental Movements, Citizens’ Coalition for Economic Justice, and other groups opposing the reactors’ construction have said they plan to accept the recommendation.

“In terms of decision-making to date, citizen participation has often been abused as a sideshow to decisions by bureaucrats and experts,” said Catholic University of Korea professor Lee Young-hee.

“With this public deliberation forum, the public has gained a new identity as active citizens capable of taking an interest in South Korea’s energy issues and producing a well thought-out decision,” Lee added.

Some are predicting the public deliberation model could be used in other major administration policy decisions going ahead.

“Citizen deliberation has increased the chances of government policies being accepted,” said Kim Ji-hyeong, adding that a “resolution is urgently needed on the issue of spent nuclear fuel [as high-level radioactive waste].”

With the public task force consisting of the participants debating based on information provided by experts, others are suggesting different forms of the deliberative consensus model could be used besides the kind seen with the committee on the Shin-Kori 5 & 6 issue. In particular, they argue that the significance should lie in tracking changes in the participants’ views over the course of deliberation rather than how much of a difference in opinions is seen.

“Some issues have to be dealt with a large-scale way like the Shin-Kori 5 & 6 public debate committee did, but a lot of methods have been developed to approach deliberative consensus in different ways, such as citizen juries,” noted Seoul National University communications professor Rhee June-woong.

“People may criticize public deliberation as costly and difficult, but it’s worth putting up with when you take into account to social costs of failing to manage conflict,” Rhee observed.

By Choi Hye-jeong and Noh Ji-won, staff reporters

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