Posted September. 15, 2001 08:16,
Among the words that politicians use the most, their favorite is `the people`. Similar to the KS mark which certifies the quality of your products, politicians always use the people to justify their policies.
No policy, however, can receive the full approval of every citizen. Authoritarian states may resort to physical coercion to get `the people`s consent` but that is impossible in a pluralistic society like ours. On the other hand, it is easy to discern the political leader`s ability in such a society. How well and how harmoniously he or she leads a diverse people becomes the measuring stick. No matter how persistent and passionate in raising his voice, he is nothing more than a leader of a minority if only a handful of people follow him.
Recently, President Kim Dae Jung`s statement `From now on, our politics will directly engage the people` stimulated much debate. On one level, it seems that President Kim`s statement is simply commonsense. Be it a democratic or authoritarian nation, politics has always engaged the people. With the development of mass communication, the President talking with a couple of local citizens on the street or in the offices creates the impression that he is talking and meeting with every citizen in the country. With mass communication at its disposal, personal democracy will only become more popular in the 21st century.
Yet, there is a disturbing logic embedded in the President`s statement. He used the words `directly engage the people` for the first time after the ULD successfully mobilized the votes in the Assembly to dismiss unification minister Lim Dong-Won. Cheong Wa Dae explained that the President was expressing his resolution to ``carry out the Sunshine policy despite the initial difficulties after minister Lim`s dismissal and to persevere with the help of the people.``
Some observers suggest that this means that the President will not deal with the National Assembly, which has become ruling-minority and majority-opposition, on the issue of the Sunshine policy. Is this what the President really thinks? It is understandable that he would since he had to see the ULD turn its back from the alliance and pack its bags. Yet, abandoning the Assembly is to give up on a parliamentary democracy, an intolerable authoritarianism and arrogance.
The statement that he will directly deal with the people for the sake of the Sunshine policy already contains the seeds for criticism. Simply put, `the people` either connotes the individuals who make up the nation or the nation as a whole. It is not as if the entire people of the nation presently support the Sunshine policy. Many are of the opinion that the policy must be supplemented and revised. If this opinion is a reflection of the people`s response to minister Lim`s dismissal, who are the actual `people` that President Kim will directly engage to push through the Sunshine policy? Do they constitute the majority of the people or are they only a portion of the population who are swept up in the heat of unification?
The lessons of the last century teaches us that political leaders who depend on special organizations, classes, or ranks as their basis of support will ultimately come to ruin as a failed leader. They all reveled in the power of their supporters and thereby lost their sense of proportion and perspective on the whole citizenry.
I do not know how sincerely the President is listening to the criticisms against the faulty aspects of the Sunshine policy. The administration`s excessive attachment to `Sunshine` is one of the biggest reasons why there is such much ideological conflict, anger, and antagonism in our society. The administration failed to take seriously the people who insisted on `shade` rather than `sunshine`. President Kim should listen carefully to the voices that argue for a `shade` policy and not just to the citizens who support the Sunshine policy. The South-North minister-level meeting which begins today will be a good opportunity to exercise such leadership. Rather than putting only `sunshine` on the agenda, there must be honest dialogue about the `shade`. Instead of getting swept up in emotions and rhetoric about fellow people and countrymen, one hopes that the meeting will provide time for an objective look at the South-North relations. Many citizens are watching to see whether we will do what we must and whether we will speak the things that may offend the North.
Nam Chan-Soon (Editorial Staff)