[Editorial] Enough for Leftist Roh Administration’s Incompetence

It seems that president Roh Moo-hyun has relapsed into “factionalism.” Roh said in the 27th anniversary of the 5-18 Gwangju pro-democracy movement, “Nowadays, there are some people insisting again that pro-democratic forces are incompetent or a failure,” and asked ironically, “Are they saying military dictatorships were competent or a success?” He added, “The military regime’s achievements were obtained by depriving others of chances. That ‘their achievements could not have been possible without dictatorship’ is a notion which definitely depreciates the nation’s capacity.”

Based on the above, we cannot help but understand that he means to form a new battlefront of “democracy versus dictatorship” by replacing blame against the Roh administration’s incompetence with blame on pro-democracy forces as a whole. If not, Roh’s generalization as above is hard to understand.

Seoul National University professor Song Ho-geun pointed out in a press interview, “It should not be a matter that can be generalized as a competence evaluation re: pro-democracy forces. They should not generalize their own problems as those shared by pro-democracy forces in general.”

The Roh administration’s incompetence and misrule have no grounds for controversy. It is justified by the disorder in the nation’s identity, economic growth rate below world’s economic growth rate for three years, and serious difficulties in national life, let alone low support rates for the ruling party.

Roh mentioned “10 years of achievements by democratic governments” including the Kim Dae-jung (DJ) administration to attenuate blames against the participation government. This is a view that does not make sense.

He exemplified “balanced welfare society establishment” and “pacifism settlements,” but even the achievements of these policies have been questioned. Even if such contributions were made, they would have been impossible without the rapid modernization and growth achieved by governments prior to democratization. It has been proved by postwar history that in newly emerging nations, economic growth is one of the significant prerequisites for democratization.

Roh maintained, “Military governments divested others of opportunities,” but this is an inappropriate historical perspective. It was a “choice,” but not “deprivation.” It is more objective and general to recognize that the value of “development” was selected in the opening stages of national development, rather than that of “democracy.” In Roh’s point of view, even the work achieved by pro-democracy forces should be denigrated as work done by depriving others of opportunities. This is the reason why we see Roh’s statement showing his intention to “bolster up the factionalism of May 16 forces (the day when the coup de tat took place which led to 18-year long military dictatorship in Korea) versus May 18 spirit for the upcoming presidential election.”