A Proposal for Reform of the Political Structure To Eliminate Regional Divisiveness
Fellow party members,
Several suggestions I floated recently apparently boggled the minds of members of the party, and I am going to write to you now to spell out my thinking in more detail. My suggestions vary, but the conclusion is the same. It is necessary to normalize politics by righting the structural faults of our political system. My goal is more productive politics.
My Suggestion for a Political Coalition Represents My Resolve to Eliminate the Abnormal Political Structure
"Why coalition?"many people ask. For my part, I would like to ask in response, "At a time when many countries have coalition governments, why are we so uniquely unraveled by the mention of a coalition?"
If political parties gear up and join forces, some people criticize it as "collaboration," or "backroom collusion." It appears that the memory of the era of dictatorship when political machinations and political collusion were rampant still lingers on. However, the world has changed a lot. It is time for us to run politics in a normal fashion by entertaining a normal way of thinking.
I talk about a coalition because politics is constantly roiled by the power equation and swayed by the fact that the opposition has a numerical advantage. No country in the world has had to run state affairs under a political structure swayed by the opposition camp. Consequently, under such a structure, state affairs cannot be administered as intended.
Since 1988, in Korea, there have been several experiments with such a political structure, but none have succeeded. In the end, when the opposition camp has had a plurality, it was removed through a three-party merger or other artificial correction of the political scene. That testifies to the fact that when the government camp is outnumbered in the National Assembly, it makes it hard to run state affairs.
Citing past cases that existed in the United States, some people allege that politics can be managed well under such a political structure. But such a perception is wrong. The United States boasts a unique political system in the world, and American politics is quite different from Korean politics. It would be very difficult to make it the Korean model.
It is time for us to relinquish the abnormal political structure resulting from the opposition camp outnumbering the governing party. Gone is the era of political machinations, intimidation and buying off of politicians. Korean politics, too, should be normalized throughjust and normal political procedures that are common throughout the world.
If a political coalition is realized, a new era of politics will dawn marked by trust, cooperation, dialogue and compromise which will stand in contrast to the politics of the past characterized by dictatorship and the drive to topple it, distrust and confrontation. That implies that the maturity of Korean politics would be enhanced, ushering in an age of the democracy of magnanimity replacing the era of the democracy of struggle. In this sense, we should earnestly accept a debate on a coalition with an open mind rather than taking pride in an uncompromising firm political stand.
Why Talk About Political Bedfellows Is Brought Up Again
The most natural politicalcoalition would be for the Uri Party to team up with the smaller splinter parties to secure a majority in the National Assembly and form the government. However, there are two other options. The first one is for all opposition parties to join forces, garner a majority in the legislature and, on the strength of that, to form a coalition government with the ruling party as in France. The other option is for the Uri Party to take the initiative to form a grand coalition with the GNP and other opposition parties.
I hinted at the idea of a government of strange bedfellows when I was the President-elect. If the Grand National Party had secured the majority of seats in the 17th National Assembly or had wanted to achieve an alignment with other opposition parties, it could have called for such a government even if I did not want it. I would have viewedsuch a consequence as just in terms of the Constitution or from a political perspective. As it turned out, however, the results of the 17th general election created a situation that eliminated the need altogether for talk about an alignment. Even after the opposition camp came to outnumber the governing party as a result of the April 30 by-election, such a possibility for a coalition looked improbable in light of the political line of the Democratic Labor Party.
Nevertheless, Iagain propose a coalition government for a special purpose. I would like to say that it is not appropriate for political party, albeit in the opposition camp, to consider aligning with another political faction just for the sake of opposition. After the April 30 by-election, the GNP behaved as though it intended to align with others in the opposition camp only for the sake of opposition. In fact, the National Assembly appeared to be going in that way. That is why my staff and I were seriously concerned over how some legislation bills would be handled. Given the realization of such a trend, I decided to come up with a suggestion for a coalition government. My thinking was that if a political party was to align with other camps to secure a majority of parliamentary seats, it should be for a responsible purpose and not be done solely to oppose and rattle the Administration.
An Alignment with the Opposition Simply for Opposition's Sake Runs Counter to the Mission of a Responsible Political Party
In fact, nowhere in the politics of any country in the world can we find a case of alignment in the opposition camp only for the sake of opposition, unless there is a special circumstance such as struggle for democracy. If opposition parties want to form an alliance among themselves, they had better do it for the purpose of taking over the government or joining in governing.
However, this outcome was averted because the Democratic Labor Party rejected any alignment in the opposition camp designed only for opposition. It was indeed fortunate. It was fortunate not only for me but for the future of Korean politicsthat is normal politics. I only hope that henceforth politicalparties and the media will not make abnormal commentaries calling into question the "identity of the opposition party"as though something went wrong just because the opposition parties did not join forces in the cause of opposition.
The Necessity for a Grand Coalition: Institutional Elimination of Regional Divisiveness
Fellow party members,
The question before us concerns a grand coalition.
If the Uri Party leads the coalition, the GNP would have no reason to take part in it. Thus, a grand coalition means that the GNP would lead the way, and the Uri Party would participate in it. Of course, the participation by other opposition parties would make a better coalition.
A coalition would be feasible if it involved a transition of power at the cabinet level rather than a cabinet system remaining under the control of the President. Thus, the transition of power would involve two power transitions. First, the power of the President would be turned over to the Uri Party, and then the Uri Party would simultaneously turn it over to the GNP.
In return for the power transition, what we want is to reorganize the existing election system to institutionally remove the Regional Divisiveness -based power structure. The alternative is not necessarily the adoptionof medium-size or large constituencies. Whatever the election system, a consensus can be built if we eliminate Regional Divisiveness. I do not mean that general elections should be held right now. If a political agreement is reached, the GNP may lead the way, the President would transfer power to the ensuing coalition, and the Government and opposition parties would be better able to work together to arrange a new election system.
Numerous Korean political problems stem from Regional Divisiveness. For politicians to win elections under the current political structure based on Regional Divisiveness, they need to constantly incite distrust and hostility against the opposite region and rival politicians and to fan regional egoism. Legislativeactivities are destined to be confrontational revolving around Regional Divisiveness and regional egoism. The more regions become divided and confrontation deepens, the more regional sentiments are cemented, thus removing any possibility of support for policy-based parties or dialogue-based politics.
Politicians incite Regional Divisiveness in a bid to win elections and then are locked in Regional Divisiveness and the resulting vicious cycle. Without resolving Regional Divisiveness, it will be difficult to remove various ingrained problems facing politicians, and no step forward can be made for the improvement of politics as a result.
Regional Divisiveness Is the Biggest Stumbling Block to a Bright Future for Korean Politics and the Country
Furthermore,Regional Divisiveness has been ceaselessly dividing the people. It is cause for serious concern about the future. A look at history indicates that every time the nation faced a crisis, division occurred. Division among leaders and division between the leaders and the people invited national crisis. Division prevented the people from pooling their wisdom, thus making it difficult to overcome any national crisis.
Today, Regional Divisiveness breeds division, and I am concerned for the future of the country.In fact, we have all along seen that not just a few state affairs are entangled due to the grave nature of Regional Divisiveness.
Thus viewed, Regional Divisiveness presents the single biggest stumbling block to a bright future for Korean politics and the country. It must be removed.
To do all this, we all should give up our vested rights. The President and the Uri Party should share political power, and the GNP should give up its vested rights linked with Regional Divisiveness. Neither is easy to do. But it is worth doing, and if it is done, success will be for all to enjoy.
Overcoming Regional Divisiveness Is My Goal on Which I Will Stake My Political Life and Is the Call of History
In the 1987 Presidential election, many young people ventured to monitor fair elections even by braving terrorism by hooligans. It was in vain, and I witnessed the military dictatorship prolonged to my utter wrath; I remember shedding tears. One year into the 13th National Assembly, I decided to give up politics and startedto launch a drive to bring the opposition camp together. Following the three-party merger in 1990, I ventured to confront Regional Divisiveness just as I had confronted dictatorialrule. I failed to be elected several times, being accused of breaching trust. I have never clung to my political career.
It was for the cause of overcoming Regional Divisiveness that I decided to run for President. I expected that once I won the election, Regional Divisiveness would be dispelled, and if the Regional Divisiveness-based structure were somehow weakened in the wake of the general elections, it would be possible to improve the system. In my first address at the National Assembly after becoming President, Iearnestly appealed for the improvement of the election system to help eliminate Regional Divisiveness.
Overcoming Regional Divisiveness is the goal on which I am willing to stake my political life; it is the reason why I made my Presidential bid. The job is worth doing even by staking all my political power. It also represents my duty to history.
The Uri Party was organized by those who were willing to risk losing and who faced criticism that they were being divisive, but who aspired to create a party that went beyond Regional Divisiveness and overcame Regional Divisiveness. Even now, I believe that no one in the Uri Party worries about the next election and fears giving up power if only it would overcome Regional Divisiveness. And they will not bicker over which cabinet posts are available under the proposed coalition.
Expectations About a Big Shift in Ways of Thinking, Transcending Distrust and Resolving to Make a Decisive Decision
The GNP now faces a decisive decision for the sake of history. It is time to boldly relinquish the liabilities linked with its sordidpast and make a fresh start. We cannot depend on ruinous Regional Divisiveness forever, hampering the progress of politics in this country. When political parties continue to do that, they will not be able to shake off the bad name of "regional party," and even when they take over the Central Government, they will find it impossible to govern properly. If a party wants to take over the national Government and govern successfully, it has to make a bold move to shake off its regional label. When it happens, it will also signify departure from the bad political legacy stemming from the expedient three-party-merger which paved the way for perpetuating Regional Divisiveness in the Republic.
When the ruling and opposition parties agree on coalition, a new chapter in Korean politics will be opened. That is becausethe agreement would mean that the parties would first have to give up their vested interests. That would represent a very courageous action that has no precedent in Korean politics. It will no doubt constitutea sensational political feat. It will also signal the coming of new politics based on a new stance and mutual respect. It will be the beginning of the politics of toleration and coexistence. As a result, the standards of politics will have been lifted one level higher in the Republic.
As I make this proposal, I do not expect to reap any political gain personally. On the contrary, I am willing to surrender Government power. There is no dishonest scheme in this. I am appealing for a bold decision byall the political parties based on a drastic paradigm shift, transcending distrust and suspicion. By doing so, the nation as a whole as well as the politicians in both the ruling and opposition camps will embark on a new phase of history of victory.
Differences in theConcepts of Different Parties and Their Histories Should be Overcome Through Grand Compromise
Fellow Uri Party members,
Stop to think for a moment and imagine the future we could bring about. Can't you see a brand-new world?
If the Grand National Party says it is not interested in taking Government power, that would be abnormal. That is because they have always argued that the Republic is in crisis. Hearing whatthey say, we as a nation seem to be on the verge of falling into an abyss. If they really mean what they say, they had better assume Government power without delay and cope with the crisis.
Essentially, a political party is an organization that aims at taking over government power and ruling. You would expect that a political party would be willing to take charge when it is given an opportunity. I do not think that the GNP is so irresponsible as tojust take delight in picking on the Government without intending to assume power. Last year, the GNP must have joined the impeachment action against me with the purpose of taking power. I do not think it did so just to embarrass me.
To some people, the word coalition might sound rather strange. However, not all the governments in the world are organized through direct elections. Many countries form a coalition when no party has a majority in the parliament. Depending on which parties ally with which parties, a ruling party can be replaced quickly. Historically, many coalition governments have left great accomplishments. There is no reason to consider them strange and try to avoid them.
Some people might protest thatcoalition would be unnatural in this country because the two major parties have different party lines and histories. They have a point there, but I would like to urge them to go beyond the differences in the interest of a higher cause and objectives.
To tell the truth, both parties already encompass persons from a wide range of persuasions, and I do not believe the differences in their party lines are so great. The good thing is that when the two parties form a coalition and have a joint caucus, those who are from different parties but have similar ideas will cooperate each other. This means that the National Assembly members will be able to engage in policy debates more freely than now according to their own conviction as well as party lines. The differences in the concepts of the different parties and their legitimacy should be overcome through grand compromise.
More May Be at Stake in Transcending Regional Divisiveness than in the Change of Administrations 14
Whatwe have proposed amounts to transferring our party's governing power. We are offering this because elimination of Regional Divisiveness is worth it. We have to pay the price, as we are well aware that the GNP will also have to surrender theirvested interest in the Gyeongsang-do provinces where almost all of its electoral candidates have been elected automatically and that giving up their privileges in the region would not be easy.
It might be difficult for the GNP to accept our proposal readily. But if we continue to persuade the GNP members seriously and the understanding of the general public is broadened on the issue, the GNP would have to consider our proposition seriously. Until the opposition party responds to our offer positively, we have to ask it what is its alternative for curing the political ills stemming from the nation's biased political map. We have to ask the GNP members if retaining their main electoral base is more important than the future of the Republic. We have to ask them who is responsible for the lopsided regional political map caused by the three-party merger, which in turn resulted in disoriented political lines and unprincipled politics. We have to ask continuously about their plans to normalize politics in the country. In the meantime, we have to open dialogue with the GNP through various means and channels.
Good Politics Are Prerequisite to a Good Economy
Some people criticize my proposal by saying that when the people are having a difficult time economically, talk about the political structure is inappropriate. But their argument lacks logic. That is blaming others for the sake of blame. In the past when we staged demonstrations for democratization of the Republic, the dictators always accused us of demonstrating in the midst of a bad economy. But we know the economy grew rapidly despite the many street demonstrations.
For several years around the June 1987 democratization movement, the nation was extremely noisy because of the citizens' cries for democratization, but the economy kept on registering double digit growth.
If a factory wants to boost its products and quality, it first has to have good production facilities. When the facilities have problems they have to be fixed right away. If the factory neglects the problems just because the people there are too busy, productivity will suffer in the long run. Likewise, good politics is prerequisite to a good economy. Good politics in turn hinges on a good system. That is why we are arguing for repair of the political system. I am asking the question again. Is it possible to carry out good politics with an outdated, flawed system? How long will it be until it is fixed?
Regarding the economy, I have been doing my level best. Around the time myAdministration of the Participatory Government was inaugurated, there were a slew of difficult problems affecting the economy. Dotting the economic minefield were the North Korean nuclear issue, ROK-U.S. relations and a drastic increase in bad loans involving credit cards, households and small businesses as well as the resultant massive number of credit defaulters.
Now, the critical stage seems to be over. Of course, the economy still has other problems such as wildly fluctuating oil prices and foreign exchange rates in addition to the bi-polarization of family incomes. However, compared with the situation two years ago, dangers havebeen reduced. In general, the economy has stabilized, and the prospects are much better. I assure you I have worked hard. The good results were achieved despite many pessimistic views. For that, I am very proud of the Korean people. Thank you.
Many people told me to entrust the economic affairs with the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. I have already done that. But just to make sure we do not face sudden danger of some kind, I am closely following the economy with my staff. Even though I spend some time talking about political issues in the future, I will make certain that it will not affect the economy adversely.
Political Reform Will Enable Sustained Economic Development
During the second half of my tenure, I would like to streamline the political system so that it will help make economic development sustainable. Again, a competent factory manager will naturally make the best effort to make an individual product perfect. But the more important thing is to first make sure all the production facilities are in good working order as well as to improve the system continuously.
The most important reform task as Presidentis to improve the political system so that the political structure is in good working order. Some people may say that the President should concern himself with fulfilling the day-to-day maintenance routine faithfully instead of trying to fix the whole thing. For this reason, they might try to find fault with my effort to reform politics. But I cannot accept that as the reform is of paramount importance.
Regarding the proposal for a coalition, some people may criticize it, saying it is unconstitutional. But that kind of view comes from a lack of understanding of our Constitution. Our constitutional stipulation about a presidential system is not so simplistic. The Constitution allows operation of the Government in a way similar to a cabinet system if diversepolitical entities agree to such an arrangement. The authors of the Constitution might not have had such an arrangement in mind when they wrote it. Nonetheless, it does not prohibit the operation of a governing system similar to a parliamentary system. InFrance, constitutional writers might not have thought about allowing two different parties to govern together. Regardless, the French had no difficulties in letting two political parties run the central government hand-in-hand. The Korean Constitution is similar to the French Constitution.
Changed Political Reality Requires Flexible Operation of Government Power
Still other politically-biased critics say the President must be thinking lightly of the power that the Korean people have given him. But this is not true. Political reality today in Korea is different than in the past and requires flexible management of Government power. Many people think that the presidential systems in Korea and the United States are similar. But they are quite different. In America, the President, but not his/her political party, is the distinct entity that assumes power after an election. But in Korea, the President's political party as well as the President himself is supposed to be put into power. As a result, the President's Administration and his party consult regularly. Korean political parties act in uniformity in the National Assembly. In other words, Korean political entities behave similarly to those in the cabinet-system nations.
Now, as politics is democratized, new problems havearisen. In the past, when the President was in complete control of the party, he did not have many problems. Now that the President cannot control his party, the Administration and the party are often embroiled in a fight for policy initiatives. This is the reality of our system. The President who does not have institutional leadership role and authority within the party cannot go very far in administering state affairs.
The Separation of Government and Party Was First Caused by the Public's Wish to Check Strong Presidents
In order to cope with this problem, I have tried to delegate more and more presidential responsibilities to the Prime Minister from the Uri Party and let him maintain harmony between the Government and the party through regular consultations. This was necessary to comply more strictly with the principle separating the Government from the party. However, this seems to have puzzled many party members. Some members questioned the President's reasons for delegating his responsibilities. When they were told that there was not any particular reason other than those clearly stated already, they were critical of the President for trying to avoid presidential leadership and influence. Conversely, other members are complaining that they are treated like a rubber stamp. Some other members even try to meddle in the presidential appointments of the Cheong Wa Dae staff.
The idea to separate the Government from the ruling party originally stemmed from the people's wish to check the presidents who wielded too much power in the past. I believe that this principle of separation will contribute to enhancing the status and authority of the political parties and, by extension, the National Assembly vis-à-vis the President. That is because the Prime Minister from the party will stand in thecenter of Government activities with his increased responsibilities and authority. I believe that this arrangement is more suitable to the call of the times. It will also contribute to reducing conflict betweenthe President and theNational Assembly which are liable to be swept into a power struggle as they are elected directly albeit separately. The new arrangement bolstering the Prime Minister can be used as a way to coordinate conflict situations more rationally.
This kind of flexibility is more acutely felt when theopposition parties occupying a majority in the National Assembly reject a presidential nominee for the post of Prime Minister and instead attempt, in effect, to install a Prime Minister of their own choice. In a similar situation, France gave birth to a government in which two different parties collaborated to rule the country together. To those people who have not had a chance to cope with similar agonizing political realities, my offer for a coalition might seem like a very thoughtless venture that can hardly be tolerated. But my proposition this time represents a conclusion I have come to after serious reflection and painful agony in the face of the rapidly changing realities and abnormal political system of this country. I hope you understand my situation.
Let's Make a Historic Determination to Realize Productive Politics
Fellow party members,
Before it is too late, somebody has got to start and change the biased regional political map. Itis a task of historic importance. We have to restore the political order that was seriously impaired by the three-party merger. The issue of the ruling party's minority status in the National Assembly cannot be resolved through expedient, stop-gap measures. It has to be solved through structural, systemic changes.
The Uri Party has to make a bold decision before others do. With the determination to write a new chapter in history, we have to make our best effort to create a consensus among the Korean people. Now is the time for us to begin treating the chronic political ills of this country. We have to realize decent, productive politics by ourselves and record it in our history books.
Thank you for reading through this long writing. |