Font size: 
It is clear that a representative democracy has been considered to function as the trusted main framework in which the South Korean people exercise their political power, by choosing their political leaders who will act on their behalf. In contrast, the participatory democracy system has been traditionally considered limited, because citizens tend to pursue their own self-interests within this kind of system.
However, the favorable view of representative democracy has recently weakened as social circumstances have changed. Korean people have matured into more truly democratic members of their society who are willing to pursue the common good, thanks to education and accumulating experience within the democratic environment.
Without any additional means to control the politicians’ power except for democratic elections, lack of policy restraint and a low level of political responsibility are inevitable. It was natural that Korean people could clearly see that their political elites have become less attentive to their demands and shown themselves to care more about their own political interests than the needs of their citizens.
Korean people also seem to have become disillusioned with their political leaders, as they have witnessed the fact that political leaders’ rosy promises made during campaigns do not always lead to policy implementation. Their ensuing disappointment and frustration has resulted in their political indifference. This is well illustrated by the Korean voting rate, which has collapsed to its lowest level in quite some time. We could see this trend in the last presidential election and even in this year’s general election.
While Korean people’s frustration with their representative democracy system has grown, they have finally confronted the reality that their on-going patience with the present system cannot remain a viable option. The catalyst of the realization was the U.S. beef import issue, which arose from the negotiations for a Korea-U.S. free trade agreement.
The beef import issue, because it concerns the risk of “mad cow” disease – whether the risk is actually high or low – is important because it directly relates to the people’s deep concern about their everyday diet. If they were just to wait, it could then be too late to solve their health problem. This awareness has instigated popular demonstrations, not only in front of Seoul City Hall, but also on the streets.
Furthermore, what has aggravated the situation and contributed to the expansion of public protests was the Lee Myung-bak government’s failure to respond to their requests immediately and clearly. Some politicians’ inadvertent remarks, which cast doubt upon the sincerity of the protesters, provoked the protest participants more and even encouraged non-participants to join in.
Human rights activist Peter Tatchell, in a column in the British newspaper The Guardian, pointed out that direct-action democracy – participatory democracy – arises as the only option left to people when politicians show they do not care about the demands of their people and when they break their election commitments. Tatchell advocates the use of direct action, claiming it is an effective way of improving human rights and social justice, as shown by Mahatma Gandhi, Sylvia Pankhurst and Martin Luther King, who successfully adopted it.
However, it appears that such participatory democracy can cause some problematic side effects. Because it usually involves participants in substantial numbers, who may demonstrate provocative behavior as they try to maximize their political appeal, it is quite likely to run the risk of breaching public order. However, this danger can be averted.
Mature democratic citizens, in an attempt to justify their political action as it impacts on a society, may choose to exercise self-regulation to keep peace and order. This has been shown in the Korean people’s candlelight protests. They demonstrated their prudence and responsible citizenship by planning ahead carefully in order to avoid infringing any laws when they decided to take to the streets for the nighttime protests.
In fact, Lee’s government should take some political responsibility for the possible violation of public order, as it was one of the causes. It has failed to demonstrate a responsible attitude to its people. It has done nothing but provoke protest participants more seriously.
It is true that the representative system plays a major role in driving democracy. However, it has increasingly revealed its own limitations and weaknesses and, as a result, promoted public desire to choose more direct methods to shape political decisions. Therefore, such direct-action democracy is praiseworthy, especially when it operates with a moderate degree of self-regulation.
In this regard, the emerging participatory democracy is a natural and acceptable social development. Lee’s government, if it really supports the Korean people, should not just perceive the candlelight movements as a threat to Korea’s representative democracy system; it should rather embrace it as a stepping stone, for it is palpable evidence of Korea’s maturing democracy.
--
(Lee Jae Young is a freelance writer and citizen reporter for Ohmynews International. He has a master's degree from Cornell University Law School in Ithaca, New York. ©Copyright Lee Jae Young.)
