<html>
<body>
One big problem in the politics of the ROK is that the both ends of the
ideological spectrums refuse to accept the result of the general
elections. After Roh Moo-Hyun was elected, the right-wing group undertook
an impeachment proceeding against him fearing he might be a front for
"Communization" of Korea. When Lee Myung-Bak won the election,
the leftists refused to go along with the election result accusing him of
being a Fascist. The candle-light demonstrations last year and the most
recent outburst of street demonstrations should be seen as an effort to
destabilize the MB government negating the election result, for which
they would marshal all their energies. There are certain segments in the
both left and the right who simply can not accept election results they
do not like. On one hand ROK has made a tremendous and impressive
advancement in the democratic way of governing the country such as
choosing president by means of election under relatively free atmosphere,
but one the other hand, the people in general have not yet got around to
accept or become familiar with other paraphernalia of the democracy, such
as respecting opposing views. This phenomenon may very well be a legacy
that the Neo-Confucianism has bequeathed to modern Korea as the Choson
dynasty ideology constantly emphasized its so-called orthodoxy. <br><br>
Aloha, <br><br>
Yong-ho Choe<br><br>
<br><br>
At 05:50 ¿ÀÈÄ 2009-05-12, Timothy Savage wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">This is an important point, that
I think speaks to a systemic problem in Korean politics. South Korea has
achieved a high degree of electoral democracy, as demonstrated by the
fact that the Blue House has changed control in two of the last three
elections. However, it is still lacking somewhat in checks and balances,
both between the different branches of government and between government
and society (writ large). Add to this the fact that the president serves
only a single, five-year term, and there is very little accountability or
incentive to compromise between elections. Basically, the president
implements his agenda and everyone else starts preparing to run in the
next election. Citizens, including those who may have voted for the
president based on part of his agenda while opposing other parts, have
very little recourse other than to take the streets. Protests, while a
legitimate form of political expression, are an imperfect barometer of
public opinion, and both the Ph ilippines and Thailand have amptly
demonstrated the dangers of allowing street protesters to exercise a veto
over election results. To really strengthen democracy in South Korea,
what's needed are ways to increase accountability and incentive
compromise *between* elections, so politics becomes less of a zero-sum
game.<br>
<br>
Tim Savage<br><br>
> Broadening a little, the writer puts down the LMB government as if
it somehow gained power despite the wishes of most people. In fact, he
was elected in an embarrassingly wide landslide in December 2007 in
reaction against the policies, mostly to do with the economy, of the
previous government. Now LMB is running into his own
"popularity" problems, again a lot to do with the economy. The
forces ranged against him generally supported his opponent in 2007 and
have never accepted the fact that their candidate lost soundly. (He just
got elected to the Assembly, incidentally, running as an independent
after his former party refused to put him on the slate.)<br><br>
<br>
<hr>
Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live
Spaces. It's easy!
<a href="http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us">
Try it!</a> </blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
Yong-ho Choe, Professor Emeritus<br>
Department of History<br>
University of Hawaii at Manoa<br>
Honolulu, HI 96822<br><br>
Tel: 808 956-6699<br>
Fax: 808 956-9600<br>
E-mail: choeyh@hawaii.edu<br>
</body>
</html>