A Philosophical Study on the Crisis of Democracy in Korea

7/31/2019 A Philosophical Study on the Crisis of Democracy in Korea

1/7

(The XXII World Congress of Philosophy (WCP 2008)July 30 August 5, 2008, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

A Philosophical Study on the Crisis of Democracy in Korea

Seong-Woo KimKorea Association For Studies of Philosophical Thought

[email protected]

Abstract:

The result of 2007s presidential election in South Korea symbolizes the decline of the Left and

the growth of the new Right. They say it goes with the global retrogression of democracy, or the

consolidation of the hegemony of the rightist versions of democracy. According to Choi Jang-jip,

the general public in Korea has thought that the Roh Moo-hyuns administration had betrayed

them, handing power over to the market, and seeking to form a coalition government with the

conservatives. Similarly, Professor Jang Ha-jun asserts that the democratic governments of Kim

Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun have mistaken economic democratization for neo-liberalistic

structural adjustment.

The alleged deconstruction of the old left-right dichotomy is not a real dissolution of the

problem, but causes new problems. In the result, the equality/inequality axis of N. Bobbio is the

reflection of the historical truth. Liberal democracy based on the principle of real inequality with

a face of formal equality is only a degenerate one of democracy based on the principle of real

equality. The latter will be realized by non-capitalistic system which the principle of equality

forms the foundation of. In this article, I show that the equality/inequality axis should be the true

standard of the left-right distinction.

1.

The result of 2007s presidential electionin South Korea has been symbolizing the decline of

the Left and the growth of the new Right. This political phenomenon that has lastly been
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/7

happening in the country corresponds to the victory of neo-liberalism and the transformation into

the Third Way of the Left through the late-1990s and 2000s in the world. The latter has implied

the death of the Left after the collapse of real communism in Eastern Europe and The Soviet

Union, which, in its turn, has resulted in the passive or coerced changes of the political ethos of

the Left. The Leftists in the almost countries have declared that they had moved beyond the old

left-right dichotomy. At last, the global trend of the political has swept over the land of the

morning calm too late. It means the global retrogression of democracy, or the consolidation of

the hegemony of the rightist versions of one.

Lets review some self-diagnoses of the leftists of South Korea about the political affairs.

According to one like Choi Jang-jip, the general public of the country has thought that the Roh

Moo-hyuns administration had betrayed them, handing over power to the market, and seeking

to form a coalition government with the conservatives. The result is that the working conditions

and socio-economic polarization have worsened terribly. The serious mistake of the progressive

government has made people feel disgust for progressive values. It has damaged the spirit of

progressivism living in the peoples mind after 87 democratization of Korea. Similarly, another

like the University of Cambridge professor Jang Ha-jun asserts that the democratic

governments such as the Kim Dae-jung one and the Roh Moo-hyun one have become the

missionary of neo-liberalism, yielding to the claims of transnational capital and adjusting the

Korean economic structure into the neo-liberalistic one. He boldly says that they have mistaken

economic democratization for neo-liberalistic structural adjustment.


3/7

The assertions of reflexive Progressives of Korea like those of the above-mentioned two ones

are somewhat reasonable, but still one-sided. They ignore the global aspect of this

phenomenon of the decline of the Left and the growth of the new Right of the country. The

strong effects of 87 democratization of Korea had deferred the coming of the global political

trend. Already in the early 1990s, many western commentators like neoconservative

sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset had written that the Left is spent, or dissolving itself,

because it was obvious that leftist economics was a disaster and that the electorates would no

longer leftist in power.1 The Prophecy of them has exactly been fulfilled in the political scene of

Korea. Not the Korean specificity of the political trend as the global retrogression of

democracy, but the universality of it must be taken note of. It is not the end of history as the

victory of liberal democracy(F. Fukuyama). On the contrary, Liberal democracy is diametrically

opposed to democracy, because the former is only the perversion of the latter. It is not the

dialectical synthesis of liberalism and democracy. Democracy is the mediated

sublation(Aufheben) of liberalism.

2.

The deconstruction of the old left-right dichotomy doesnt mean the perfect dissolution of it,

but the generation of such another. N. Bobbio2 says that the moral value of equality is the

essential component of all left political theories and types of opposition to such equality are

inherent in all right political theories and that the equality/inequality axis is intrinsic to the left-


4/7

right distinction(the progressive-conservative one in Korea). Growing inequality caused by the

expansion of neo-liberalism has actually proved the validity of his argument.

All liberal theorists use a dual axis of liberty/equality and liberty/authority instead of the

equality/inequality axis. They see equality as the synonym of authority. Accordingly, they have

narrowed the meaning of the concept. But equality is not opposed to liberty. Perfect liberty

should be realized only on the basis of equality. Liberty has degenerated into oppression without

equality, which has been shown by the globalization of capital market. The Authoritarian equality

such as the perverted communism of Stalin doesnt mean the realization of any true equality,

but only a destruction of it. The true equality is the mediated sublation(Aufheben) of liberty. The

word liberal democracy reflects somewhat truth of the state of affairs. Historically, liberals of 19 th

century had criticized democracy as politics for the poor and rejected equal suffrage. In spite of

the situation, liberals have decorated their faces with democracy, for, democracy bestows an

aura of legitimacy on modern political life: laws, rules and policies appear justified when they

are democratic.3

However, democratic liberals are, they still prefer inequality to perfect social-economic

equality. They say only growth or liberty instead of inequality. Liberal democracy is an unequal

democracy., which is an absurd concept because democracy primarily means equality. They

have the strong fear of equality and democracy. In this respect, liberty is still another name of

inequality and liberalism also the synonym of capitalism. Therefore, the dual axis of

liberty/equality and liberty/authority of liberalism is a wrong use. In reality, capitalism and

democracy are not complementary systems. Rather they are two sharply contrasting rules


5/7

regulating both the process of human development and the historical evolution of whole

societies.4 Liberalism as capitalism is characterized by the priority of economic privilege based

on property rights; democracy as the political vision of the leftists sees equal human rights

including social rights as fundamental. In the result, the equality/inequality axis of N. Bobbio is

the reflection of the historical truth.

The old Leftists have still regarded democracy as a discreditable thing and socialist

democracy as fried snowballs, a contradiction in terms(as Leszek Kolakowski put it). The chief

one of the causes of this general discredit is the Stalinist system. It is a counter-revolution,

the suppression of the democratic potential in the revolutions of 1917 and the installation not of

socialism, but of a particular variant of capitalism, bureaucratic state capitalism.5 The failure of

the existing communism is in the lack of a form of democracy which is not liberal, but socialist.

The current crises of liberal democratic states including Korea also result from the worsening of

inequality as the outcome of the success of neo-liberalism. Therefore, the collapse of the

Communisms represents not the final success of liberalism as an ideology but the decisive

undermining of the ability of liberal ideology to continue its historic role.6 Liberal democracy

based on the principle of real inequality with a face of formal equality is not the form of, but a

degenerate one of democracy based on the principle of real equality. The latter will be realized

by non-capitalistic system which the principle of equality forms the foundation of. The

equality/inequality axis should be the true standard of the left-right distinction.

3.


6/7

The decline of the Left and the growth of the new Right as a global phenomenon is not the fall

of the Left, but only of the false Left who have revised their identity toward the Right and

disguised their faces with centrism such as the Third Way of T. Blair and Roh Moo-hyun, who

spoke of his political identity as the leftist neo-liberalism. Their transformation is not a

evolutionary process but only a opportunist betrayal. They have betrayed their peoples intense

aspirations toward emancipation from their poverty and real inequalities. A new strategy of the

future Left will be that at first, democracy should be separated from liberalism, which means a

deconstruction of liberal democracy, and that then, a form of democracy which is non-liberal, or

post-liberal be sought after. In order to grounding it, the dialectical interpretation of equality of

equality and inequality should be tried that is based on the one of very important dialectical

principles as identity of identity and non-identity(= difference) in the doctrine of essence of

Hegels Science of Logic.7 It means that this interpretation is a dialectical sublation of

deconstructionist logic of difference. After all, the essence of the seemingly current global crises

of the Left is in that these crises are ones of neo-liberalists and of the pseudo-Left with liberal

faces.


7/7

1 C. Derber, Whats Left?: Radical Politics in the Postcommunist Era (The University ofMassachusetts Press, Boston 1995), pp.1-2.

2 N. Bobbio, Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction (University of ChicagoPress, Chicago 1996).

3 D. Held, Democracy and the Global Order(Stanford University Press, Stanford 1995), p.3.

4 S. Bowles, H. Gintis, Democracy and Capitalism (Basic Books, Inc., New York 1986), p.3.

5 A. Callinicos, Socialism and Democracy, in ed. D. Held, Prospect for Democracy(PolityPress, 1993), p.201.

6 I. Wallerstein, After Liberalism (The New Press, New York 1995), p.3.

7 I will focus on this study and write a separate essay on it in time.

References

N. Bobbio, Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction (University of ChicagoPress, Chicago 1996).

S. Bowles, H. Gintis, Democracy and Capitalism (Basic Books, Inc., New York 1986).

C. Derber, Whats Left?: Radical Politics in the Postcommunist Era (The University ofMassachusetts Press, Boston 1995).

A. Callinicos, Socialism and Democracy, in ed. D. Held, Prospect for Democracy (PolityPress, 1993), pp.200-212.

D. Held, Democracy and the Global Order (Stanford University Press, Stanford 1995).

I. Wallerstein, After Liberalism (The New Press, New York 1995).

Documents

A Philosophical Study on the Crisis of Democracy in Korea