[OUTLOOK] Criteria for Defining Democracy

Korea Does Not Measure Up to Basic Criteria for Democracy
by Song Bok

There are countless criteria for defining democracy, as there are
yardsticks for measuring thedegree of democracy.

If there is one common element among many of these criteria and yardsticks, it would be the extent of influence politics have on
society. The more democratic a country, the less its politics intervene negatively in the life of its citizens.

Now let's look at Korea, a country where the state of politics has an immediate impact on citizens' personal finances. This fact was brought home starkly by the 110 trillion won ($85.7 billion) raised so far in public funds.

Not a single person among the public knows why it had been necessary to appropriate 110 trillion won for public funding, where the funds went and if they are going to normalize the nation's economy. No one knows the answer to such crucial questions, and yet it has been reported several times already that the people will have to come up with 60 trillion won, or more than half of the earmarked public funds, by paying more taxes.

As it is, Koreans pay over 20 percent of their income in taxes, on
top of which they now face the prospect of coughing up some
more to help the administration make up the greater part of the
money it has raised in public funds. And, wonder of wonders, the National Assembly has not held a single hearing to investigate
into how and where the money was used.

What is more frustrating for the public is that no one has been
held accountable for wasting staggering amounts of money. When
such politics of holding no one responsible for grave policy failures continue, the people see more of their personal finances drain away toward the government to finance its wasteful policy mistakes. In a less-democratic country, people are made to pay more money in taxes for preposterous purposes.

One of the principles of democracy is paying no taxes when there are no government representatives and drawing up no budgets when there is no supervision. Why do politics in Korea so thoroughly trample on such fundamental principles of democracy?

One other common element among the criteria for democracy is the degree of estrangement between the leader and the people. In a democratic state, the leader and the people tend to share the
same perceptions and goals. The divide between the leader and the
people in their perceptions and goals becomes wider in the more
undemocratic and autocratic nations.

Now let's study the situation in Korea. Each time President Kim
Dae-jung appears on television for a public discussion, virtually all we hear afterward are the outcries from the public about their disappointment with his perception of reality and concept of the times, which seem to be so out of touch with the public's.

How many people have believed Mr. Kim when he said his administration has public opinion at heart? How many people have
agreed with him when he said lending and borrowing National Assembly members between political parties is the right way of
doing politics? How many people have nodded when he said the
prosecution is conducting independent investigations into the
central intelligence agency's diversion of its funds? Wouldn't
they have wondered which country Mr. Kim was talking about when he said that the basic framework of financial and corporate restructuring is now almost completed and that bank management has become transparent? Did they believe him when he said South Korea is the greater beneficiary of the improvements in North-South relations?

A country where political decisions play too large a role in the
daily life of the people and where there is too great a gap between the perceptions of the leader and the people is not a democratic one.

The writer is a professor of political sociology at Yonsei University.