Birds of a Feather: The Democratic Parties of Japan and South Korea
A referendum foretelling the political prospects of South Korea was held in the South Korean capital of Seoul on August 24. The point at issue: whether or not school lunches at the elementary and middle schools should be made free. Taking the form of questioning “whether or not to pander to welfare populism,” the controversial vote actually constituted a battle between the right-wing and left-wing forces in Korean politics. Put differently, it was a test of the degree to which North Korea has been able to penetrate the politics of South Korea.
The referendum ended in a victory for the opposition Democratic Party, which supported a completely free lunch program. Defeated was the incumbent, Mayor Oh Se-hoon of the Hannara Party, who was generally viewed as one of the leading candidates for the 2012 South Korean presidential election.
The Korean Democratic Party is a progressive political party known to be under the strong influence of North Korea. Meanwhile, the Hannara Party, headed by President Lee Myong-bak, has drawn considerable criticism as a “hidden progressive party” on the verge of being taken over by progressive elements, having failed to win recognition as a well-functioning conservative party. Because the incumbent party ended up only verbally supporting Mayor Oh, who had courageously come out with a sound argument against “welfare populism,” doubts about its credibility have further increased.
The issue of free school lunches sprang up in June last year, when the Democratic Party won more than 70 percent of Seoul’s City Council seats in unified local elections. With the creation of a massive welfare state in mind, the party decided to make free medical care one of the pillars of its basic policies during its general assembly in June this year, vowing to further implement a 50 percent reduction of university tuition fees. The party claims that funds required for these schemes can be managed by raising taxes for those in high-income brackets while also eliminating wasteful tax expenditures.
The Democratic Party submitted the free school lunch legislation to the Seoul City Council, claiming it was the first step towards South Korea becoming a full-fledged welfare state. Holding an overwhelming majority, the party easily passed the bill into law. But Mayor Oh rejected it as a case of populism carried too far, sending it back to the council for re-deliberation. In view of the tough financial conditions his city faced, the mayor reasoned that they could ill afford such exorbitant expenditures, and that the school lunch issue had a low priority at a time when the city must take all possible steps to make provisions for a possible state of emergency involving North Korea. But the City Council once again passed the bill, with more than two-thirds of its members voting for it. If he wished to stay true to his own convictions in running the municipal government, the referendum was the only means left to the mayor. Explains Professor Hong Hyung, a visiting professor at Obirin University in Tokyo:
Classic Obstruction of Voting
“In Korean grade schools at present, 50 % of costs involving lunches are born by the government. But the Democratic Party demanded that the lunch program at both elementary and middle schools be covered 100% by the government. Mayor Oh did not flatly oppose the proposed increased assistance, but publicly committed himself to implementing it in stages. Nevertheless, the Democrats demanded immediate implementation of 100% government coverage. That the mayor resorted to the referendum was a very logical choice to make.”
South Korean conservatives are predominantly of the view that the Democrats, while ostensibly trying to expand certain government assistance programs, are actually maneuvering to turn South Korea into a socialist state. To be more blunt, the conservatives are seriously concerned that South Koreans may be overwhelmed by the North’s ideology down the road, no longer able to appreciate the many great things about their nation, gripped by masochistic thoughts such as those symbolized in the following remarks by the late former President Roh Moo-Hyun: “South Korea is a nation that should not have been born.”
One thing is for sure: the Democratic Party approached the August 24 referendum as essentially the primary for next year’s parliamentary (April) and presidential (December) elections. Having positioned this as a battle they could not afford to lose, they very effectively used a boycott to achieve their objective.
Results of a referendum are null and void unless two-thirds of the eligible voters go to the polls; if this minimum requirement is not met, no vote counting will be held. Technically speaking, the opposition parties thought, it would be a lot easier and more advantageous to appeal to voters to not vote, causing the referendum to become null and void, rather than trying to win a majority of the votes cast. Voting rates in local autonomous regions in South Korea are generally low to begin with. Clearly, the Democrats’ tactics adroitly took this fact into account. Against his opponents’ offensive, Mayor Oh had his back to the wall, declaring he would resign as mayor if not enough voters turned up.
South Korea’s progressive camp, starting with the Democratic Party, vigorously mounted a campaign to paint the referendum as something evil. The Korean Teachers and Education Workers Union (KTU), said to be even more left-oriented than the left-wing Japan Teachers’ Union (JTU), moved in aggressively, with the Seoul Board of Education under KTU’s influence emailing parents, appealing to them to boycott the referendum. Kwack Roh-hyun, Seoul City School Superintendent, called a school principals’ meeting in a local city away from Seoul on the same day, carrying out a classic act of voter obstruction. Points out Prof. Hon:
“While these series of campaigns to prevent voting were carried out vigorously, moves to support the mayor were openly stifled. For instance, when Chairman Choi Jin-Min of Kiturami Boiler Company, a leading figure in the Korean business community, emailed his employees, urging them to go to the polls to make clear their opposition to such excessive government programs, the left-wing camp made a large commotion, charging Choi with exerting undue pressure on his employees. The ultimate case of inordinate left-wing over-reaction was the position taken by the National Election Commission.”
As the KTU and various other progressive organizations forged ahead with campaigns to appeal to voters not to go to the polls, Mayor Oh stood on a street corner during the rush hour, hoisting a poster widely visible to drivers and pedestrians alike which said, in bold letters: “August 24 is Referendum Day.”
“The National Election Commission called his act illegal,” notes Prof. Hon. “What on earth is illegal about appealing voters to vote? The Commission dared issue warnings not only to the mayor, but also to all groups and individuals who urged eligible Seoul residents to vote. On the contrary, no warnings were issued against those who campaigned to boycott the vote. If the judiciary has really leaned left to such an extent as not to be able to render fair judgment, then South Korea no longer is a country under the rule of law.”
Democratic Parties’ Pork Barrel Politics
In the end, the referendum tallied at 25.7 percent, failing to meet the minimum participation rate required for the result to stand. However, it can be safely assumed that most of the voters, who chose to go to the polls amid major leftwing campaigns to discourage them from voting, supported Mayor Oh’s vision. But it could not be confirmed as there was no vote counting. True to his announcement, Oh resigned as mayor, stressing that he would not run for president next December.
The City of Seoul is soon to go ahead with the free lunch scheme for elementary and middle school students without restrictions on family income levels. According to a trial calculation by the Democratic Party, the free lunch program will require a 2 trillion won (approximately US$15 billion) expenditure. In addition, free medical care will cost 8.1 trillion won, and reducing university tuition fees by 50 percent another 6 trillion won: the combined total will be a whopping 16 trillion won (US$120 billion), if the Democrats have their way. Financial burdens on the government will further increase if free daycare is to be implemented, as the Democrats have promised as part of their basic welfare policy. South Korea’s national budget was in the black in 2010. However, Prof. Hong warns large-scale pork barrel spending could easily shake the nation’s financial foundation, alleging that is exactly what the South Korean progressive forces have secretly been hoping to see happen as they deliberately plan on a ツ黴contingency on the Korean peninsula.
“When Kim Jong-Il’s regime finally shows signs of crumbling, South Korea has the responsibility to do everything in its power to prevent chaos in order to protect the people of North Korea and defend their land and seas. To successfully implement the many difficult measures aimed at the reunification of the two Koreas, South Korea itself must continue to maintain a solid foundation in all respects. The financial foundation constitutes an extremely crucial element. We must bear in mind that it is the pork barrel politics of the Democrats that threaten to break such a foundation.”
A new mayor of Seoul will be elected on October 26. The latest survey jointly conducted by the Chosun Ilbo and Media Research shows the top four mayoral candidates with the highest approval ratings are all women, with former Prime Minister Hang Myung-sook (12.4 percent) leading the quartet. Ms Hang is a left-wing politician who once served as Prime Minister under President Roh. A big bribery case, dating back to her days as prime minister, is pending before the Seoul High Court.
Unfortunately, the similarities between the Democratic Party of South Korea and its Japanese counterpart are truly astounding, as each has failed to develop convincing political views and continues pursuing pork barrel policies as if by mutual consent.
(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 475 in the September 8, 2011 issue of The Weekly Shicho.)