Dictatorship vs. Democracy

May is the month seeing the reborn of nature, the blooming of flowers, mountain slopes covering of green, besides to be an important month in the history of this country.
On May 16, 1961, the military intervened in politics to correct a democratic administration’s incompetence. That began the 17-year dictatorship of Park Chung-hee (朴正熙, 박정희, 1917-1979) under the banner of economic development. That era saw an end to widespread financial hardship and hunger, and the foundation of economic power was built. Chun Doo-hwan (全斗煥, 전두환, 1931- ) took over after Park’s assassination and the economy continued to grow despite the Kwangju (光州, 광주) May 18, 1980, upheaval and Chun’s strong military oppression. It would be 7 years before the June 1987 democratisation movement brought the nation to democracy.

General Park Chung-hee (centre, wearing sunglasses) flanked
by subordinates appear in Kwanghwamun (光化門, 광화문), central Seoul,
on May 16, 1961, right after he led a military coup in the early morning

Korean complex history of dictatorship and democracy is reflected in modern attitudes toward the political system. While many people today have a strong desire for democracy, others are also nostalgic for dictatorship. According to a study, after democratisation, 9 out of 10 people thought democracy was better than dictatorship. That number slowly decreased. Today, 7 out of 10 Koreans are in favour of democracy.
During my stay in Soviet Union, in the 1960s, a lot of people though that the Stalin (Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин, 1878-1953) period was much better of the Khrushchev (Никита Хрущёв, 1894-1971) period because one bottle of vodka (водка) cost only one rouble (ру́бль), while in the 1960s cost four roubles! Something similar, even if not connected to the cost of 1 bottle of soju (燒酒, 소주), is happening here in Korea.
The Dutch World Values Survey supports this point. From the mid-1990s to early 2000, less than 30 percent of Koreans thought that it was good to have a national leader who does not care about the National Assembly and elections. In the surveys conducted in 2005 and this year, that figure increased by about 20 percent. And in public evaluations of Korea’s presidents, Park almost always ranked first, mostly thanks to his economic achievements. Many Koreans see material stability as a high priority. Since democratisation, presidents have increasingly faced hardships in pushing for a unilateral national policy and the National Assembly has been more noted for its political fights rather than for its efforts to better people’s livelihoods. As a result, some people began to wonder if democracy would be enough to feed them. As the procedures of representative politics were ignored from time to time, nostalgia for developmental dictatorship—a factor in Korean economic growth—grew stronger.
Is a dictator really likelier than a democratic leader to improve the public standard of living? Some people argue that a dictator is relatively free from the demands of interest groups, so he or she can attract savings and investments with future-oriented views and effectively develop an economy. Park showed such leadership and his economic officials also demonstrated their capabilities. Yet in many other countries, dictators have privatised national wealth, allowing monopolies and cozy relations between politicians and companies while the people went hungry.
Korea’s economy grew despite the presence of corruption and undesirable ties between politicians and businesses. In addition to Park’s strong leadership, Koreans must not forget the sacrifices and contributions made by female factory workers, industrial labourers and workers on the frontline of exports.
Most nations ruled by dictators have an extremely low gross national income per capita. Singapore and some oil-producing countries are perhaps the only exceptions. In contrast, the citizens of the most developed democratic nations enjoy high incomes. The welfare programs of the average democratic nation, including health and medical benefits, are much better than those of a dictatorship. In a dictatorship, political communications are blocked, discussions about socially contentious issues are impossible and leaders are not held accountable. A dictatorship, therefore, never attends to the people’s livelihoods. The famine in North Korea is caused by the nature of its regime.
The quality of life in a democracy is also undeniably superior to that in a dictatorship. Despite Singapore’s remarkable achievement in becoming an economic hub of Southeast Asian without natural resources, it is difficult for that country to develop a culture in which individuals can express their creativity freely.
In the past, extreme examples of oppression existed in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and such practices continue under the current dictatorship in North Korea, military dictatorships in Central and South America and the religious dictatorships in the Middle East. Even though South Korea did not suffer those restrictions, it experienced political control of private life, media censorship, intelligence authorities’ surveillance and infringement of human rights during the Park regime and the following military dictatorship.
Because of the coercive nature of the dictatorship, the public temporarily submitted, but resistance such as the Kwangju May 18, 1980 movement erupted at an enormous social cost. Regional and ideological conflicts were also caused by dictatorships and they became a perennial problem of the country. Nostalgia must not blind Koreans to a realistic view of the past. Koreans must not return to the era of developmental dictatorship. It is time for Koreans to contemplate how to realise an effective, democratic political leadership.

Giorgio Olivotto
Seoul, Korea
May 29, 2011