[Bread-Baking Typewriter] "This person is not great either, but since that person can't be chosen, I have to vote for this one"

'Democracy Voting Because They Dislike the Other Side'

Opposition for the Sake of Opposition Dominates Domestic Politics, Triggered by the Cho Kuk Incident
Setting What to Oppose First and Explaining Legitimacy Based on That Becomes Common Practice

Not Conservative and Progressive Divided by Social Goals
But Conservative and Progressive Divided to Oppose Each Other

Pointing Out the Two-Party System of Minjoo and Kukhim as the Root of the Problem

[Asia Economy Reporter Chunhee Lee] It is no exaggeration to say that this spring is the season of politics. This is because the presidential election takes place in early March, the beginning of the season, followed by local elections on June 1, right after the season ends. Usually, as elections approach, fierce debates unfold about what vision will lead society. However, for us now, this is close to a lost memory. Politics is dominated by opposition for the sake of opposition, gnawing at each other on the foundation of ‘concrete support bases.’

The author points to the series of events represented by the ‘Cho Kuk White Paper’ and ‘Cho Kuk Black Paper’ as the starting point that created the current political reality. He says that “forming political discourse by asking what to oppose and explaining one’s legitimacy based on that” has become generalized in our society. Although the ideology of ‘progressive’ and ‘conservative’ still exists here, it is no longer an aspiration for an ideal society as in the past, but an ideology oriented strictly toward opposition: progressivism opposing conservatism, and conservatism as its mirror image opposing progressivism.

When interests combined with this, the situation worsened. One of the representative keywords of our era is ‘fairness.’ The trigger for the debate was the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympics. The issue of the unified North-South women’s ice hockey team was viewed by the younger generation from the perspective of fairness. They saw it as unfair that some South Korean players would ‘lose out.’ The author sees this as the starting point of conservative shifts among people in their 20s. The younger generation chose conservatism in reaction against the older generation’s logic that ‘progressivism’ symbolizes unification and peace. Moreover, the rapid rise in real estate prices and the younger generation’s immersion in stocks and cryptocurrencies to catch up deepened the social outlook of viewing everything in terms of profit and loss.

However, politicians were busy worsening the situation through ‘fandom’ rather than correcting it. Fandom follows politicians, not the ‘values’ politicians pursue. If politicians abandon those values, fandom chooses the politician, not the values. Values are discarded whenever necessary to support them. In the absence of goals, blind support has replaced them. Furthermore, the logic of equating elections to a ‘Korea-Japan match’ dragged the situation deeper into a quagmire.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

Some say the root of the problem is the two-party system where the two major parties, the Democratic Party of Korea and the People Power Party, control everything. But the author points to Japan. In the early 1990s, Japan’s ‘1955 system’ of the Liberal Democratic Party’s one-party dominance collapsed after about 40 years. However, the new coalition government, which was based on ‘opposition to something’ rather than a new direction, failed to reform and the political landscape returned to LDP dominance. The electoral reform in Korea ahead of the 2020 general election is a mirror image of this. Although the proportional representation system was improved, the Democratic Party, which led the reform, destroyed it themselves through satellite parties. The Justice Party, which first raised the agenda, became a satellite party of the Democratic Party during the reform process and was abandoned when a ‘real’ satellite party appeared.

So how can we escape the pendulum swing of opposition for the sake of opposition that repeatedly shifts left and right? The author emphasizes that we must create an alternative that changes the ‘axis,’ not the pendulum. To this end, he stresses the importance of a ‘public sphere’ but also points out the pitfalls of participatory democracy that arise in the process. Participatory democracy may be effective initially, but once truly incorporated into the structure, it is highly likely to become an empty shell within that structure.

Citizens gathered at the 'Candlelight Cultural Festival for Prosecutorial Reform to Eradicate Judicial Corruption' held in front of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul, in October 2019, are shouting slogans. Photo by Dongju Yoon doso7@

During the Cho Kuk incident, a student said, “I thought it was a fight between 20% and 80%, but it turned out that 80% was mobilized for a 19% fight to defeat 1%.” This means that even if the governance structure expands, if it still applies only to a minority, politics degenerates again into opposition for the sake of opposition within vested interests. This is why the author proposes measures such as providing income for participation itself to actively include the majority of society within the structure so they can become real owners. Of course, this is not the definitive answer. But if we think it is not the answer, we must think for ourselves about ‘what kind of democracy’ we want.

Not a society where people vote because they dislike the other side, but one where people vote because they like it ? this is the first step toward creating such a society.

Democracy Where You Vote Not Because You Hate the Other Side | Written by Minha Kim | Idea | 288 pages | 17,000 KRW

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.