Populist policies Parties should look beyond April 10 polls Since taking office early last year, President Yoon Suk Yeol must have felt the limits of a minority government. The majority opposition party has blocked Yoon's major policies, including his three reforms. Or so he might think. The president has also had to appoint many key officials despite the National Assembly's disapproval. But at least some of them should not have been nominated. Voters will judge their leader's mid-term performance ― end results and how he produced them ― in the parliamentary elections on April 10. The governing party's humiliating defeat in a by-election to elect a Seoul district chief last month was an ill omen. Now, Yoon and his party must show their willingness to change instead of blaming their political opponents. Currently, conservative voters say the chief executive is doing the right things in the wrong ways. Progressives think the Yoon administration must fundamentally change its economic, social and foreign policies. Instead, the government seems to have decided to go the populist's way. One can seldom understand policies announced in the past week or two without linking them to upcoming elections. Each is not without an excuse, but none are urgent, and some are very harmful in the long term. A case in point is the proposal to incorporate Seoul's satellite cities into the sprawling capital. The ruling party cites residents' wishes and the need to make Seoul a megacity like Tokyo or Beijing. However, if materialized, the plan will change the Republic of Korea to the Republic of Seoul. Recently, the financial authorities banned short selling "until June." They maintained the move was to block unwarranted profiteering and market destabilizing by foreign investment banks. Still, short selling is one of the essential devices with more positive functions than negative ones. By becoming the only major exchange that bans it ― not to avoid crisis but to boost stock prices – the market's reputation suffered another setback. On Tuesday, the government called off a plan to ban single-use paper cups at cafes and restaurants and extended the grace period for another ban on plastic straws. The move came after nearly a year of pilot projects and a few weeks before their full implementation. Officials say it would ease small merchants' financial burdens. Instead, Korea will be buried under plastic garbage and carry the stigma of being an environmental destroyer. Likewise, it has decided not to raise electricity prices for households and owner-operators. That will fan the use of power ― and fossil fuel. Yoon's supporters welcome these steps, saying the major parties can now duel with policies, not power politics. Sounds plausible. However, two things are essential for any policy ― consistency and predictability. Financial bureaucrats had advocated the merits of short-selling until a few months ago. Cafe and restaurant owners who have followed the government policy faithfully by hoarding paper bags and straws have been caught off guard. A policy that reverses the decentralization principle in national development for more than half a century cannot come overnight. Encouraging energy use at the expense of the environment is unthinkable. Yes, political parties should fight with policies, elections or not. The largest opposition party must give up returning to its worn-out tactics of impeaching some officials and digging up scandals. They must compete with grander themes, not those aimed at short-term vote gathering. For instance, the opposition party must explain how it would attain 3 percent economic growth by releasing more money without worsening inflation. The ruling party should show how fiscal stringency will not suffocate the nation's growth potential. In diplomacy, the rival camps must also illustrate how their extremely pro-U.S. or more balanced foreign policies will better ensure peace and prosperity on this peninsula. True, the forthcoming elections are to pick lawmakers, not the president. Still, in a small country like Korea, national issues dominate local ones. We hope voters are mature enough to select candidates and parties providing long-term visions instead of those promising immediate gains. Democracy is all about good checks and balances, not enabling a one-party state. (END) |