[Editorial] Will He Be “A President of Disunion?”

Is President Roh ultimately showing “divided leadership?” Roh’s speech at “Remember 1219”- a ceremony for pro-Roh parties- raises such question as to Roh’s position. Roh said, “Even after the presidential election, they are not giving up,” adding, “The civil revolution is unfinished and will continue.” He also appealed, “Since it is Roh-sa-mo (meeting of those who support Roh) who has established this revolution and miracle, I ask for you to support me once again.”

Although Cheong Wa Dae explained it to mean that “in order to revolutionize politics, the movement for innovative awareness should continue,” Roh’s stance towards reality, which is seen here and there in his speech, raises serious concerns. The opposition is criticizing this as pre-campaigning movement; however, it is simply not such a matter. The fact that Roh’s recognition of reality does not remove the dichotomy valuation is the problem.

Roh has separated “them” and “us.” If “us” refers to the Roh-sa-mo, who does he mean by “them?” They are the people who did not support him during the last election and in the words of Roh, “people who have been ruling with privilege, vested rights, and foul play.” It is hard to find such cases in which a president separates the citizens in such a way. The word “civil revolution” is also hard to understand. A civil revolution was achieved during the movement toward modern capitalism when people were fighting against the absolute sovereignty for human rights and political freedom. If the president and Roh-sa-mo are the subjects of the civil revolution, who are they fighting against?

Although Roh has separated as “them,” among the large support during his initial presidential period, 80 percent was support from “them.” Since Roh was a democratic candidate from the Young-nam province, it was expected that the tendency to divide the nation for their convenience, a nation decaying phenomena would be largely solved. But the reality a year after the start of his presidency is not as expected. Is it because of “them” and because of Roh and his close aides that Roh’s support rate has fallen dramatically and the expectation changed to disappointment?

It would be dangerous if Roh’s dichotomy valuation roots from his intention to change the majority of our society. Majority and non-majority cannot be substituted for one another. It is the president’s duty to converge the two sides into a sublimate uniform national energy.

The citizens ask for a “president for the whole.” They ask for a president who is not biased towards a certain group or ideology but one who puts his priority in unifying the nation. Roh should deeply consider the obligations of protecting the nation’s independence, preserving the national boundary for the nation’s continuance, and safeguarding the constitution, which are all endowed in the constitution.