[Editorial] Is This How a Country Is Being Led?

President’s Roh’s call for the repeal of the National Security Law (NSL) received a new twist when a defendant accused under the NSL refused to stand trial. He rejected the judiciary system of the state in total. Law is the foundation of national order. However bad a law may be, any member of the public should respect it. Otherwise, the very foundation of the state will be in danger.

How did we end up in the current state of things? We cannot but hold President Roh responsible for it. The defendant, who is accused of having communications with and receiving money from anti-state organizations, said, “Standing trial under the NSL is meaningless for its unconstitutionality and contradictions.” A day earlier, President Roh said, “Constitutional or not, the NSL is a bad law. This [legislative] sword is a relic that should be sheathed and sent to a museum.” The defendant used the same logic as the president. The president effectively gave reason to the conflict.

A president should not be a first party of a social conflict. The more the issue polarizes, the further he should step away to help the two parties in conflict to reach an agreement through rational discussion. This is central to democratic leadership in post-industrial society. Unfortunately, we are not experiencing such leadership, although almost two years have passed since the current government took office.

The dispute over whether to repeal the NSL or not is not an issue that should be amplified in this way. Individuals’ conservative or liberal leanings aside, much of the public believes the law should be revisited. The issue is how it should be revisited. Supporters for revision absolutely outnumber supporters of repeal. The prime minister, the justice minister, who is responsible for legislative issues, and the opposition parties showed support for revision. In an opinion poll by a media outlet, close to 70 percent said they supported revision. This is public opinion and the will of the people.

Then, the president should have set the tone for this public opinion to become a national consensus and encouraged discussions. He should have accepted it as the will of the contemporary public although he might believe it fell short of what he said is a historical decision. He should not have deviated from the issue by brushing off a law ruled as constitutional by the Supreme Court as a bad law and forcing the ruling party to repeal it. Now, how are things shaping up?

Following the president’s call for NSL repeal, a “Collection of Legends of General Kim Il-sung” went online at the People’s Solidarity’s Web site. A group of retired teachers decided to hold a rally to repent their non-refusal to giving anti-communist education as teachers. This is hardly seen as a chain of accidental events.

“Under the military dictatorship, the NSL made teachers and students shabby victims through the overall education process and through curriculum manipulation,” said the group of retired teachers. “We will dedicate the rest of our lives to eradicate anti-communist practices from the education community.” What are they talking about? How could we survive intact the Cold War era of extreme North-South confrontation without anti-communism? We don’t know how such historical views would help our lives or history itself.

Currently, the whole of society is mired in the whirlpool of a black hole called the past. At the center is the president. They said the economy and public livelihood are more important, but their outcries are hardly heard because the maelstrom is so powerful. This is not the way a country should be led. If the president is not among the first ones to renounce narrow-minded interpretations of history and “I am right and you wrong” bias, catastrophe will be awaiting us.