Abraham Lincoln, in the Gettysburg Address, famously defined democracy as “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.” The implication of this statement is that a democracy cannot function without the people. In South Korea, however, the government is opting to leave this vital element behind, spurning public opinion and labeling critics of government policy reactionaries. It is now imperative to ask the question, “What is a government without its people?”
 
It is a gross understatement to say that the question of whether to place the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missiles in South Korea has been a contentious issue. No other decision has ever been so divisive, with proponents arguing that the missiles were the only means of defense against North Korea and critics accusing them of weakening South Korea’s already tenuous relationship with China.
 
It came as a total surprise, then, when the government announced that THAAD missiles would be placed in South Korea without forewarning the people. Citizens were shocked once more when the government decided a few weeks later that Seongju-si would be hosting the missiles without any previous consultation with its residents. The news riled up Seongjusi denizens, who erupted into protest, demanding that the government rescind their decision, to which the government has been unresponsive.
 
Some say that the violent backlash against the government can be chalked up to the natural temperament of South Koreans and their penchant for disagreement. The diagnosis for the Seongju-si protest is not so simple, however; it is the result of the current administration’s lack of communication. While the decision of government representatives are usually assumed to represent that of the people, this is not currently the case, as evidenced by the immensely negative public opinion concerning THAAD placement. Such a breakdown in the government’s representative capacities regarding the THAAD decision implies that the government should have resorted to a better means of taking into account the people’s wishes.
 
In the case of Brexit, or Britain’s secession from the European Union (EU), even critics acquiesced to the result because it accurately reflected the opinion of British citizens by taking recourse to a referendum. The Korean government, on the other hand, persisted with an insufficient means of representation that ultimately led to altercations between the government and the people. To make things worse, any kind of communication on the government’s part that would have mitigated the conflict was nonexistent, with the government even refusing to recognize that it had made a misstep.
 
Nowhere else is the current administration’s aversion toward communication more apparent than in the corruption scandal of Senior Secretary for Civil Affairs Woo Byung-woo, who carried out real estate dealings that tiptoed the line between tax evasion and tax saving. In spite of the overwhelming evidence against Secretary Woo and citizens’ demands that he be removed from office, President Park Geun-Hye chose to ignore it all.
 
The outcome of government miscommunication has been predictable. China and Russia have expressed their displeasure and in China’s case, acted to have appearances by Korean actors and singers canceled. President Park’s decision has also cost her her reputation, with many politicians considering her a lame duck.
 
Granted, elected government officials should, on principle, have the final say on matters of national security even if the people might disagree. That said, when the government makes no attempt whatsoever to communicate with its people and respond to their criticisms regarding a decision that has come under as much heavy fire as THAAD placement or even Secretary Woo’s corruption scandal, one has to wonder; is the government truly speaking on the people’s behalf?
저작권자 © The Granite Tower 무단전재 및 재배포 금지