Guy Sorman / Courtesy of Guy Sorman
Democracy is never, nowhere, a perfect political system. Its true meaning and superiority on all other institutions is to replace civil war and collective violence with a predictable set of rules. As the British philosopher Karl Popper wrote: Democracy does not necessarily allow selecting the best leader, but it guarantees that the leader will leave at a certain date, known in advance and without bloodshed. This modest definition of democracy seems not well understood in South Korea, where too much benefit is expected from democracy when its true value is overlooked. As a proof of this misunderstanding, let us remind that four former presidents have been sent to jail. Whatever the motives of their incarceration, this is not the way a democratic country should work.
Actually, the misunderstanding of what democracy is about has deep roots in South Korea's history and culture: This has always been a violent society punctuated with civil wars, religious rivalries, conflicts between provinces and more recently archaic conflicts between men and women on what should be the role of women in the society. Based on such a long history on confrontations, democracy is difficult to establish on stable basis in South Korea because democracy is rooted in compromise — the very notion of compromise does not seem a strong component of the Korean civilization, to say the least. Therefore, each election is fought as a kind of war and not a confrontation between programs. When elected, the presidents behave as if they were elected dictators and not the representative of the whole nation for a finite period of time. On the other side, the opposition behaves as if they were at war with the elected dictator and not the next government-to-be when their turn comes.
Therefore, confronted with another crisis, we need to wonder how to reinforce the rule of law in spite of the complexity of South Korea's society and culture.
It seems to me, the only way would be to change the Constitution. This is a proposal I expressed many times in Seoul, even in front of the National Assembly. I had no success because each member (with some exceptions of course) of the Assembly is avidly looking for power for himself, and his followers – stability comes second.
How would a new Constitution look like? It should draw a middle way between the rule of law and the tradition of political violence. It should combine a legitimate leadership, necessary in a dangerous international environment, with an obligation for compromise.
The legitimate leader should remain the president but with a shorter mandate, like four years in the U.S., and limited powers. Instead of a political activist the president should only guarantee the respect of the law, with the increased power in case of war. Germany could be considered as a reliable model, and the U.S. before Donald Trump. Day-to-day government, long-term economic and social strategy, protection of minorities and public safety should be the task of a prime minister and his government, elected by the parliament for four years as well.
In such a parliamentary democracy, the opposition would have specific rights like the so-called shadow government in the U.K. — the right to be informed on any seminal domestic or international affairs and the right to publicly interrogate the prime minister in allotted time slots. The opposition would thus become responsible and the government would respect the opposition. Dialogue would replace fistfights.
The parliament could be divided in two chambers, like in the U.S., Germany and France: The second chamber or Senate would represent the provinces, with less power than the Congress but useful to stop excesses in the name of law and order. Two successive four-year mandates for the members of the parliament and for the president could combine efficiency and modesty; politics should thus not become a full- time job but one sequence in a professional lifetime.
Supposing that a new Constitution offering a better balance of powers than the current one, could instill a culture of compromise in the political culture, who will write such a text? For sure, this would not be the task of the current or next Assembly.
Based on the history of several European countries, the way forward would be to elect a special Assembly for a short mandate and whose only purpose would be to write the new Constitution. The members of this special Assembly would have no right to run for any political office during four years after they complete their task.
Eventually, the new Constitution will need to be approved by a popular referendum.
Not being Korean but French, I will take no position in the current conflict between the president and the various factions of the Assembly. Seen from afar, I can only be flabbergasted by the political mess which is South Korea, in contrast with its phenomenal economic and cultural success. It is time for South Korea to bridge the gap between their up-to-date economic and cultural industry on one side and their obsolete institutions on the other side. It can be done if you seize the current crisis not as a crisis but as an opportunity.
Guy Sorman is a French philosopher and economist, and the author of "Economics Does Not Lie" and "Diary of an Optimist."