창작과 비평

The Quarterly Changbi 205, Fall 2024

What Should We Do When the Government Gives Up on Governing?

South Korea is currently facing serious challenges in many essential areas, notably, the economy, society as a whole, and national security. In this situation, a single wrong turn could lead to irrevocable consequences. Accordingly, our sense of crisis is heightened. Nonetheless, until recently, South Korean society had achieved much, by actively responding to various challenges, both domestic and abroad. What increases our sense of crisis now is not the challenges themselves, but our political situation, which makes it hard for us to respond to them. The most important factor is the current Yoon Suk Yeol government’s maladministration, although it alone does not fully explain our sense of emergency. Typically, checks and forms of supervision can work in poor administration, and change can be also attempted through periodic elections. Even now, a significant proportion of the Korean people hold out hope for such possibilities. However, if what matters is not maladministration but the fact that the government has given up on governing, it becomes a different situation.

Governance is essential in a democracy—which is quite different from rule or control. In particular, in a representative democracy, we entrust people or political parties, chosen through elections, with considerable authority. This authority is meant to secure the safety of the community members and to elevate the quality of their lives. Although elected officials do not always act according to these standards, they at least try to be recognized as doing so. That is how they secure legitimacy for their powers, while power that does not acquire such legitimacy tends to face resistance. That is why administrations and ruling parties in the past who were defeated in major elections expressed their respect for public opinion and tried to adjust the theme of their administrative operations.

The Yoon Suk Yeol administration, however, has not shown any respect for public opinion, after their crushing defeat in the parliamentary election in April. Their indifference to public opinion is exemplified in their repeated exercise of the presidential veto concerning the special counsel acts, which a majority of the Korean people demanded even before the general election. But the way they are handing personnel matters is even worse. The appointment of an individual who will clearly violate norms of fairness to be chair of the Korean Communications Commission, someone else who will preclude inter-Korean dialogue to be secretariat of the Peaceful Unification Advisory Council, and another appointee who denounces the independence movement to the directorship of the Independence Hall of Korea….The current government repeatedly makes appointments that could seriously injure the institutions they are appointed to lead. Both the Minister of Public Administration and Security, responsible for the Itaewon Disaster two years ago, and the Prime Minister, who expressed his intention to resign after the defeat in the parliamentary election in April, remain in their positions. 

It goes without saying that state institutions cannot function properly in this situation. No serious efforts have been made to cope with the crises in livelihoods that the public has been facing recently. Although small businesses are driven to the brink and an unprecedented shortage of tax revenues is occurring, the current administration and ruling party irresponsibly argue for a reduction in taxes. Indeed, it plays like a black comedy: Trying to suppress people’s worries about their livelihoods through rosy fantasies, such as the announcement of an oil development plan based on unreliable research and the winning of a contract for the construction of a nuclear power plant that does not guarantee profitability.

In fact, though, this problem was expected, as from the beginning of the current administration, it did not present any vision for Korean society, but instead blamed the previous administration for the problems it faced. Then the behavior of the current administration after the recent general election put a damper on even the least of our expectations, and more openly revealed the administration’s character as a power that has given up on governing. This is an unprecedented situation in Korea, one we have not seen before, even through our tumultuous modern history.

Although we may wonder how this could have happened in a country that experienced the Candlelight Revolution, it also has something to do with that revolution. Since the Candlelight Revolution, conservative forces in Korea have lost their ability to present any vision or ideas that could win over people who experienced that revolution. As a result, their parasitic quality has increased. In other words, they try to maintain control by relying on power that is not the will of the people. They act under the assumption that they can cover up wrongdoings by encouraging hate toward an imaginary and vague enemy, such as “communist totalitarianism,” and they suppress and manipulate public opinion by utilizing prosecutions and the media.

Although the authorities have given up governing, that does not mean they do nothing. In fact, they pursue their private interests even more enthusiastically than they did before by using power. And this situation also increases their dependency on foreign powers. Otherwise, it would be hard to understand why the Yoon Suk Yeol administration is consistently subservient toward Japan. Their irresponsible behavior, based on their belief that the United States will help with defense, even while they argue for power-based peace and heighten a war crisis, with no ability to wage war, is one of the most extreme aspects of this parasitic quality. The most dangerous situation this kind of behavior could bring about is to cover up domestic crises with an inter-Korean conflict or a similar confrontation between powerful countries.

In order to put a stop to the current situation, one that ruins democracy, people’s livelihoods, and peace, and, above all, in order for people to be the owners of their country, we need to bring about an early end to the Yoon Suk Yeol administration. In fact, even conservatives wonder and worry about whether the current administration’s behavior can continue or not. Before and after the general election, the possibility of an early step-down or impeachment of the president was mentioned even within conservative media and parties. However, being part of the problem, they have no reason to lead the effort for a solution. In the end, it is us, the people, and the political forces supported by us during the general election, that should find a solution, by exercising our creative wisdom.

As for ways to end the current administration early, we can list the following: political compromise, impeachment, and people exercising their right to resist. In any of these cases, it should be a way in which a broad range of forces participate, and a changing of politics in an orderly manner, rather than simply aiming to punish the current administration.

As a political compromise, we can pursue both the reduction of the Yoon administration’s term and the amendment of the constitution. This kind of compromise does not happen automatically, though. Above all, we need to broaden the consensus about the essential problems of the Yoon administration and the necessity for its early end. The possibility of political compromise opens up when it becomes hard for the current powers to maintain its power due to an increase in the people’s call for impeachment or a decline in its approval ratings past a critical point. During this process, if the illegality of governing actions or serious corruption cases are confirmed, people might directly exercise their right to resist. However, resistance is not something we see as a first option, as it increases political instability and is open to the derailment of an orderly transition. Rather, as broad a coalition of forces as possible in the political arena should unite and find a way to simultaneously try to hold the current administration responsible for its illegal governance and to pursue political change, including impeachment. Whether it is a political compromise or forced step-down, , an orderly changeover is easier when conservatives reform themselves. For this to happen, they should stop their current parasitic behavior and power games, which only result in repeated failures in their governance, and instead come up with a new governing philosophy suitable to the demands of a new kind of nation-building.

No matter which process might create change, including the exercise of the people’s right to resist, most important is creating trust that political changeover can happen not through confusion and violence but democratically. Only then will the majority Koreans participate in this process and be able to achieve success through overwhelming power. Although some worry that the uncertainty of the political process is heightened, the essence of democracy is to respect public opinion rather than acknowledging the vested interests within elected power. Stopping elected power from driving our nation into serious crisis, while it takes the road against public opinion, is a touchstone that can show whether or not democracy is working properly in our society. What’s more, we have historical experiences of achieving such a process creatively, peacefully, and democratically—that is the potential of Korean society that will help us overcome the crisis we are facing.

We planned this issue’s feature under the title “How Shall We Create a Second Candlelight Government?” in order to find a way to materialize such a potential of Korean society. Jeon Ji-yun, an editorial board member of Mindle News, points out our reality in which people’s mistrust of the “legacy” media, which habitually offer unjust and lopsided reports, has been increasing. He emphasizes that we need to counter their negative influence, above all, for the building of the second-term Candlelight government, as the influence of the media has been strong at every important phase after the Candlelight Revolution. For that, he presents as an important task: that “progressive” media that have now become parts of the legacy media avoid a reflexive neutrality, and instead stand with the anti-Yoon Suk Yeol front, together with new progressive media. 

The next two articles give us a glimpse of the positions in the Democratic Party of Korea and Rebuilding Korea Party, two opposition parties that should spearhead the building of the second-term Candlelight government. Representative Min Byoungdug of the former explains concrete aspects dealing with the breakdown of people’s livelihoods under the Yoon administration and presents visions and strategies that the Democratic Party of Korea should pursue to obtain power. He argues that his party’s presentation of concrete policies to improve people’s livelihoods and the heightening of people’s trust in its ability to carry them out could expedite our road to a second-term Candlelight government. 

Kim Bo-Hyeop, a spokesperson for the Rebuilding Korea Party, explains the background of their official policy: to pursue Yoon Suk Yeol’s impeachment and strategies to do so. He asks for people’s interest and participation in the Three Years Are Too Long Special Committee (a.k.a. “Committee to Pursue Impeachment”) so that the committee can play a central role in the people’s movement for an early end to the current administration. Clearly, this is a beginning, and we expect that discussions on this topic will continue, while reflecting any changing situations.

“Articles” presents two substantive pieces of writing. Quarterly Changbi’s Editor Emeritus Paik Nak-chung argues that, from the perspective of the division system, it is not at all surprising that President Kim Jong-un of the State Affairs in North Korea has defined the inter-Korean relationship as one between two countries, and that we can solve this problem by overcoming the division system. In particular, Paik argues that North Korea’s new position has a positive aspect, since it is open to the possibility of their accepting the plan for the federation of nations, which has been presented as a major step in the overcoming of the division system. He maintains that what is important is whether we could lead this relationship between two countries to become one that is not hostile. 

We also present an article by Baik Ji-yeon, which dynamically illuminates the achievements and significance of Hwang Sok-yong’s Mater 2-10 in the assets and traditions of Korean literature, as the third article in the series “Searching for K-Discourse.” Baik pays particular attention to how this novel, which captures the lives and histories of modern industrial workers in Korea in native “folktale-like realism,” explores a newly vital path for world narratives through the transformational imagination of “nation-building.”

In “Dialogue,” Paik Young-Gyung moderates a discussion among frontline healthcare workers Kim Yongjin, Park Kunhee, and Baik Jaejoong, in which they diagnose the current healthcare situation in Korea and discuss how to solve problems in it. While revealing the problematic current situation, in which the essential expansion of public healthcare is not discussed while the conflict between healthcare fields and the government is prolonged, they present the strengthening of primary care as an important direction for a solution.

Creative writings in this issue present works that can further enrich the current season of harvest. Together with stimulating works by 12 renowned poets, we present poems by Kim Jin Seon, the winner of the Changbi Award for Young Writers in the Poetry category. For fiction, you will encounter new short stories by Kim Byungwoon, Kim Seong Joong, Park Moon Young, Shin Kyung-sook, and Yoon Sung-hee, as well as one by Moon Soi, winner of the Changbi Award for Young Writers in the Fiction category. Colorful works that have us both confront and embrace pain in our reality will offer some warm consolation.

For “Focus on Author,” the literary critic Jeon Gihwa met with writer Jeon Seungtae, whose short-story collection It’s Okay Here was recently published, nine years after the publication of his previous short-story collection. By combining a measured analysis of short stories with the novelist’s frank narratives, the essay reveals the virtue of this book of short stories, which warmly examine various connected lives that look heterogeneous in modern Korean history. 

In “Literary Criticism,” Ra Hee Duk examines and summarizes the 70-year poetic history of late Shin Kyeong-rim, who left great footprints on the history of modern Korean poetry. By re-illuminating his entire life as that of a person crying and wandering, and by showing how his poetic world moved from a community in history to an ecological community, she helps us to cope with our sense of loss about this “father of poetry.”

In “On the Scene” corner, we feature an article by Lee Mihyeon, who examines civic society’s efforts to illuminate the truth of the Itaewon Disaster two years ago, on October 29, a disaster that has been somewhat buried under numerous national controversies and issues, and who explains clearly the major issues about it. She emphasizes that for the Special Act on the Itaewon Disaster—the only controversial law to avoid a presidential veto on its second try, among all special laws—to be carried out in a manner appropriate to its purpose, it is necessary for citizens to pay ongoing attention to it. 

The background of this issues’ article in the “Where I Live” series is Gwacheon, Gyeonggi-do province. Song Jung-Q discusses what remains and should remain amidst “inevitable” changes in apartment complexes, with Gwacheon, an “old new town” as a backdrop.

In “Literary Focus,” Kim Su-i examines books of poetry by Cha Do-ha, Lee So-youn, and Lee Yeong-gwang, while Nam Sang-wook discusses a short-story collection by Kim Kitae and a novel by Kim Yi-seol, and Kwon Heecheol elucidates a book of literary criticism by Han Young-in. We hope that their perspectives will stimulate our reading of noteworthy books of this season, and make them more interesting and beneficial. In “Book Reviews” we introduce various books that are noteworthy not only because of readers’ attention, but because of their meaningful messages about our society.

The 42nd Sin Dong-yup Prize for Literature went to poet Park Se-mi and novelist Kim Kitae. We heartily congratulate them. We are also publishing the shortlist for this year’s Manhae Prize in Literature, and urge our readers’ interest in the announcement of the winners in the winter issue.

Heat waves are now fading, according to the law of nature. Yet problems that burden and confront us do not automatically disappear. Based on the behavior of the Yoon Suk Yeol administration, harder problems might be in store for us. However, believing that the people’s will still works in history, we present this fall issue of Quarterly Changbi. We hope that it will encourage our readers during this difficult time, while dreaming of building a new country.

Lee Nam Ju