Last week, a by-election was held in Korea.
Though I don't have all the information about this election, most of it naturally being published in Korean, I think that 4 seats were up for grabs in the
National Assembly of Korea.
The opposition scored major gains in the by-election, in what has been described as
a "crushing defeat" of the current ruling political party in Korea, the conservative "
Grand National Party" (GNP) associated to president
Lee Myung-Bak. The GNP won only 1 seat in the by-election,
suffering defeat in a riding that is traditionally a GNP stronghold.
The GNP's lost votes seem to have gone mostly to the "
Democratic Party". The Democratic Party is a relatively new party in the Korean political landscape. It is a centrist party and is associated to the last president of Korea,
Roh Moo-Hyun. Though it experienced a period of turmoil in the mid 2000's, culminating in the
suicide of former president Roh and the relegation of the party to opposition status within the National Assembly,
commentary published after the by-election suggests that the party is again gaining popular support, and that
its leader will be a serious contender in the presidential election scheduled for 2012.
It seems to me that the Democratic Party's platform and policies are more in line with those of previous Korean governments than those of the current government.
Since the establishment of the 6th Republic of South Korea, in 1987, Korea has had 5 presidents. Though the first of these presidents,
Roh Tae-Woo, was connected to the dictatorship of the
5th republic, I think that the first four presidents shared many ideological features. Notably, they were generally pro-labour and championed the priorities of ordinary Koreans over those of the more affluent and powerful.
Lee Myung-Bak, the current president, is quite different. He was once the CEO of a large corporation, and
his government has been criticized for favouring the interests of the wealthy over those of poorer Koreans. And shortly before the by-election, the government announced that workers' contributions to the Korean national health insurance system would be increased,
a decision that was criticized by some of the press.
However, not only the economic policies of the current government of Korea have been criticized. First of all, the current president diverges significantly from his predecessors in his approach to dealing with North Korea. The first 4 presidents of the 6th republic were strongly nationalistic leaders who favoured the reunification of the Koreas, but took a soft-handed approach to dealing with the North. The 3rd president of the 6th republic,
Kim Dae-Jung, formulated and adopted the "
sunshine policy", a policy of engaging the North while maintaining a strong defensive posture in the South. It seems to me that this policy was in some sense a continuation of the policies of the first 2 presidents of the 6th republic, and it was carried on by the fourth president,
Roh Moo-Hyun. On the other hand,
president Lee Myung-Bak and his government abandoned the sunshine policy, arguing that it failed to produce any changes in the attitudes of the North Korean government, and adopted instead a hard-line attitude in their dealings with North Korea.
Some have suggested that this hard-line position "created confrontation" and may partly be the cause of the North’s recent attacks on the
Cheonan navy corvette and, late last year, on the
island of Yeonpyeong. In addition, the current president is a Christian who, when he was mayor of Seoul,
blatantly mixed his religion with his politics by declaring that Seoul is a "holy place governed by God". In the early days of his presidency,
Buddhists accused him of discriminating against them and favouring Christians. Furthermore, it has also been reported that
journalistic freedom has regressed in Korea since the current government was inaugurated.
And one recent analysis has argued that the current government is reversing some of Korea's achievements in matters of democratic freedom.
How familiar all of this sounds...
In Canada, the
Canadian Parliament has been in the grips of the
Conservative party for a number of years now. In my opinion, the election of a Conservative party government in Canada has been a break with traditional Canadian politics. Though there existed, prior to 2003, the
Progressive-Conservative party of Canada, and though its most notable leader,
Brian Mulroney, was prime minister of Canada for many years, the Progressive-Conservative party was generally only fiscally conservative. Socially, Progressive-Conservatives were quite liberal. In contrast, the current Conservative party of Canada is both fiscally and socially conservative. The socially conservative character of this party is, in my view, an important feature that separates it from all other current Canadian political parties, and from the political parties that have been active in Canada's recent past.
The Conservative party generally favours the interests of the wealthy over those of ordinary citizens,
but other Canadian governments have been accused of doing the same thing. The Conservative party is perhaps most significantly different from other Canadian political parties on matters relating to the military. For instance, in 2003,
when the United States launched the Iraq War,
Jean Chretien, then leader of the
Liberal Party of Canada and Canada's prime minister, sensed that Canadians wanted nothing to do with this war. He therefore refused to send the Canadian military to Iraq, at least officially, and aligned himself with the majority of Canada's political parties, including the Liberal Party, the
New Democratic Party, the
Green Party, and the
Bloc Québécois. The only political party that favoured Canada's entry into the Iraq war was the Conservative party.
But the current Conservative government has also been criticised for its religious ideology, an ideology that, in my opinion, borders on the ridiculous.
In a recent article, published by Montreal's "
Le Devoir",
a number of anecdotes detailing the backwardness of Conservative party members' religious beliefs were presented. A first example... A Liberal party member, during a government-related flight from Canada to Asia, suffered an allergic reaction that caused her difficulty to breathe. The article reports that in response, Conservative party members approached her, lay their hands upon her, and began to pray. This, naturally, had the effect of ... rendering even more difficult her breathing. Another anecdote... In a parliamentary meeting convened to discuss matters affecting Canadians who have been adopted, one Conservative party member confidently asserted his understanding of such matters, citing his own adoption ... into the family of God. And perhaps the most serious revelation of the article...
During his undergraduate studies, the current Canadian immigration minister published an opinion piece in his university's newspaper in which he compared the abortion pro-choice movement to the Ku Klux Klan. That such people are holding government positions in Canada is inexplicable to me, especially since most Canadians seem to be non-religious. In a recent study,
Canada has been cited as one of nine nations throughout the world where religion may simply disappear.
As if this were not enough,
the current Conservative government has proposed major changes to Canada's criminal justice system, including the lengthening of prison sentences and the construction of more prisons. Surprisingly, this is happening in the context of a 10-year-long sustained decline in Canadian crime rates. At the same time, this same government has presided over what may come to be remembered as some of the most serious human rights violations ever to occur on Canadian soil, namely
the arrest without due cause of nearly one thousand Canadians during the G20 summit that was held in Toronto last June. The
Canadian Civil Liberties Association has called for an inquiry into this matter, and
published a report documenting "major civil liberties violations" perpetrated against citizens by the government and the police during the summit.
The Liberal government of the Province of Ontario has also come under fire for the same issue.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the current Conservative government has been found to be in contempt of the Parliament of Canada, and cited by the speaker of the House of Commons not once, but twice as possibly in contempt of Parliament.
The first act of contempt occurred when a minister ordered that a document be altered in order to justify cutting the funding of a church organization that promotes economic development in some of the world's poorest countries, and then lied to Parliament about her knowledge of the matter.
Their second act of contempt had to do with financial matters relating to some of the government's proposed projects, including its proposed changes to the criminal justice system. In addition, not long ago,
the Auditor-General of the Government of Canada reported that the Conservative government had misinformed Parliament about the allocation of government monies.
In light of these development, along with many others, some citizens have called upon the Governor General of Canada to fire the Conservative Prime Minister and to ask the other political parties to form a new government. But, in spite of the current government's flagrant disrespect for Canadian democracy,
the editors of Canada's "Globe and Mail" ridiculously suggested that Canada now needs the "leadership" of the Conservative party.
National elections are going to be held in Canada on Monday, May 2. Will Canadians follow the lead of the Koreans and drop their conservative government?
