So Korea’s Democrat party once again has made a mockery of the democratic process, by walking out of Parliament after making an unreasonable demand, without stopping to, you know, talk, about anything.
Now, Michael Breen, in one of my favorite Breen quotes, once wrote in a KT article about the way the CSAT exam reinforces the hierarchical nature of Korean culture:
there is a profound aversion in this culture to debate. The clash of ideas is seen as more clash than ideas. Many of the problems in this society can be traced back to this one profound cause. Instead of the exchange of ideas, one finds exchange of symbols of power and he who has the power has his ideas accepted.
The irony here is that when people spend all the time rushing at each other like peacocks for who has more status, there is no real harmony.
The problem is, when there is no discussion of ideas, EVEN IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, and all debate is replaced by hysterical demands and grandstanding, the process by which (hopefully) a democracy improves itself, is truncated, and polarized into those with power, and those without. When those without can’t, or refuse to put forward a legitimate case that those WITH power would listen to, in favor of throwing chairs and judo flips, it gives those in power carte blanche to do whatever the hell they please.
So it’s happened again, and the questions I have are:
1. Remember how a New Zealand company made an ad that used footage of a Korean parliament scrum, and ended with a caption “need a new business shirt? sale…” and which was protested by Kiwi Koreans until the ad was pulled? Does anybody have that clip, and could they send it, or the link, to me?
2. Do these people realize that their grandstanding makes them look like idiots, and makes their country’s democracy look like a farce? It’ ain’t 1978 anymore, and you don’t need riot police to be in the house before democracy’s happening anymore. Used to be, but it’s no longer true.
And here’s my pipe dream.
I’d love to see… a nonaffiliated organization be formed that has the power to, say, reprimand, discipline, and then strip a politician of office if his or her behaviour while (or before) parliament convenes is found to be…well…a national disgrace? Write up some strict rules that either side would want followed, no matter if they’re the majority or the minority, and a fair process of evaluating offenses, and an unbiased panel, or at least a politically balanced panel, making decisions about who to warn and punish — like a professional sport’s discipline board, ruling on whose red card leads to a two-game suspension, and who just gets a one-gamer. Make sure it has no connections with either party’s leadership. Heck, maybe the Korean Tourism Organization should run the panel, seeing as they’re the ones stuck with trying to promote the country that these asshats are making to look stupid.
(most images from here and here and here)
PS: Check out Mirror.co.uk’s list of top ten political punch-ups. With video.
03/09/2009 at 12:39 pm Permalink
Excellent post. Nice idea.
Korean politics, and the parliament in particular, leaves me awestruck every time.
None of this is going to change until people start electing the candidates who carry the signs saying, “Vote for me, I’m not a childish douche-bag.”
This won’t be for some time, since someone not behaving with a force + 1 response attitude is obviously not representing their constituents to the full extent of their upper body muscles.
Still, it’s a good show……..
04/09/2009 at 3:20 pm Permalink
people forget western childish tactics like ‘filibusters’ or other delay tactics when looking at how other nations deal with problems. when you mock someone else, be prepared to have your own goverment’s stupid behaviors exposed fo all to see.
western nations are not adult at all.
04/09/2009 at 5:52 pm Permalink
Yeah. So on a post about the democratic process in western countries, on a blog about the democratic process in western countries, let’s talk about that. We’re talking about korea here, arch, and bringing in other countries’ behavior doesn’t change the fact it’s a farce in Korea, just as much as it’s a farce anywhere else it happens.
If Peter’s a rude guy, but Paul is rude too, that doesn’t mean Peter’s off the hook, it just means Peter AND Paul need to clean up their acts. And here, we’re talking about Peter (Korea), not Paul (Western countries)
stay on topic, please.
10/09/2009 at 6:27 am Permalink
Occasionally, comparing Peter to Paul can make for a convinicning argument. However, my main concern with Archaelogist’s argument is that his comparison is far off. A filbuster is a tool of protecting a democracy. Though, it may be viewed as childish to those who are opposed to the filibuster’s outcome, it is a way of protecting the rights of the minoroty party. Filibuster’s are rarely used. Furthermore, they can only be used in the Senate, and if the Senate’s constituents get tired of inaction in governemnt, they can, and the have (as, some say is the current composition of the U.S. Senate) elect a “filibuster proof” senate. Legislative bodies throughout the world have their own unique cultures. The British Parlaiment comes off like a shouting match compared to the US Congress, however, fisticuffs are not considered a valid arguments in either legislative body. The whole idea of a legislative body in a democracy is that there should be a place where ideas can be discussed without the use of violence. South Korea is a young democracy now, and is going through some growing pains. In that way, the Peter to Paul comparison may be unfair, however, referring to a filibuster as being immature and in the same vein as an outright brawl in parliament, indicates a lack of understanding of what a fillibuster is, and what it is meant to accomplish.
13/09/2009 at 9:15 am Permalink
For every election that I’ve been present in Korea to watch, I’ve always tried to take the time to be with my Korean friends near the giant banner boards that have the pictures of all the candidates. I ask my Korean friends, “Which one are you going to vote for?”, or, “How do you decide which one to vote for?”.
In Kyungsan-do, my friends said, “That guy. He’s MY guy!” He’s from MY neighborhood and he’s a fighter!”
In Kangwan-do, “I vote for the one who will steal the least.”
Kyunggi-do, “why vote?”
I’ve never met an a Korean person who actually believes in their politicians. I’ve met many who believe in the system, in democracy, in elections, but not in parties or the individual politicians. They’re corrupt. They steal. They sell influence. Inevitably, the stories of political corruption start rolling in after an election. Voter faith lowers.
Until parliament learns to control itself, it will only continue to lose face and authority in the eyes of the voters.