South Korea - President Roh Impeached

Yonhap News ^ | March 11, 2004

[bayourod]

Is that the way Bruce Lee really fights? Where are the nunchucks and star knives? I don't see anyone doing triple backflips either. You sure your pictures aren't from Italy or Mexico?

[MD_Willington_1976]

"We must all do the honourable thing now and hurl ourselves from the highest building we can find..."

[Remember_Salamis]

This is what happens when you elect a leftist. Lee hoi-Chang, the conservative, only lost by a point and a half in the December 2002 elections. Lee wanted to end the "sunshine policy" and slap sanction on the North. He and his Grand National Party (GNP) are ardent supporters of the Global War on Terror. What's worst about the whole thing is that Lee would have won in a walk if the US Army's 2nd Infantry Division on the peninsula had a decent PR department. What happened was that Two soldiers accidentally ran over and killed a little south korean girl in the summer of 2002. But, the Army didn't say whether it was an accident, or criminal, or anything for a week. As a result, conspiracy theories started flying all over the peninsula about a cover-up. Then, in October, the court martial found both soldiers not guilty and a wave of anti-americanism swept the country. Roh emerged from the Millennium Democratic Party (MDP) Primary and started spouting rhetoric about reducing US troops on the peninsula and "reexamining" the US-ROK relationship. I guess Roh reaps what he sows.

[atomicpossum]

SEOUL, South Korea -- South Korean parliament voted Friday to remove President Roh Moo-hyun from office on illegal electioneering and incompetence charges, in the country's first presidential impeachment bid.

"*SIGH*

It's all about sex..."

:-)

[VOA]

Some 1,000 protesters were holding a rally supporting Roh who declined
on Thursday to apologize for election campaign remarks that prompted his opponents
to try to impeach him.

This may be good news. Once rational South Koreans started doing protests in favor of
the USA, there were a LOT more than 1,000 folks in the streets of Seoul.

Hmmm...Saddam, then Khaddafi, then Aristede, now Roh...
which other peckerwood is gonna be neutered next?

[JasonC]

My explanation of the fact you've observed, for what it may be worth -

Their previous political culture was feudal at the social level and centered around a monarchial court at the political level. Institutions like companies and bureaucracies were intuitively obvious as modernizations of noble "houses" and their networks of patronage.

Overall political leadership and its responsibilities were also obvious enough, but were better understood when almost all real power was "in" rather than "out". Or, fights occur as factional struggles within a ruling group, just a factions naturally form in courts over possible alternatives and rival "houses" - without, however, challenging the stability of rule by a continuous institution. The modern version was just a dominant political party - so those were also obvious. Real power and figurehead relationships are also obvious.

But the flow of power upward as representative of uppity commoners was not obvious, indeed did not even seem to fit the party idea. In the past, power stemmed for the socially similar divided houses of nobility, indirectly from their patronage systems - on the one hand - and outward from the court as deciding disputes between them, on the other hand. Not up from the ranks. The ranks pledge their loyalty to a social organization and do what is in its interests. Politics consists of these social organizations shifting their factional alliances with one another.

When trying to operate systems meant to articulate positions from below, consensually, the nominal rather than real powers (constitutional offices, rather than party positions or social influence) have various de jure powers assigned to them. But in the normal course of events these do not matter. They are pro forma, the real decisions have been made in cabinet meetings and board rooms and party caucuses, using the old feudal forms of behavior. When one side tries to use them as real powers to fight the decisions made off the floor, they are seen as "out of line", as usurping expected behaviors, as "misusing" them. Appealing to legal powers is a deviation from the normal, and is read as a brute power play.

And the old system had ways of handling brute power plays. "Knights" escalated to violence in the service of their faction. That is what these "parliamentarians" are doing here.

In the west, we see parties as not entirely legitimate institutions, as de facto ways of grabbing and controlling the legal state. We put up with them because they work in practice, though we are endlessly annoyed with the practical realities of how they work (bribes to finance them, cynical leaders spurning idealistic rankers, lack of a clear choice when the leaders strive for the same winning positions, etc).

Well, I think in their background political and social culture, the parties seem normal and legitimate, and it is the parliaments and congresses and elections that seem contrived, merely practical, but somewhat ornate and at times seemingly pointless devices.

Just as we see something illegitimate in party behaviors when they change outcomes compared to what would happen with democracy or parliamentary procedure (open debate, any amendments, up or down vote etc), they see something seemingly illegitimate when those parliamentary procedures are manipulated to produce outcomes different from the parties' smoke filled rooms.

In this particular case, off the floor it was decided the President had to go, as the eventual vote indicates. But on the floor, some of his supporters tried to use the fact that the speaker in their parliament controls the agenda, de jure, to prevent it from coming up for a vote. They manipulated this position as they would have fought over physical control of the Privy Seal in a monarchy.

So when presidential supporters made this sort of de jure "power play", the appropriate response seemed obvious - escalate to violence and physically eject them from the position whose de jure powers they were "usurping" for ends not agreed off the floor.

That's my interpretation.

[SunkenCiv]

The impeachment passed by a vote of 193 to 2.

Could it be he's lost some support? ;') So much for South Korea's "first North Korean president."

---

to: AmericanInTokyo; ASA Vet; atomicpossum; bayourod; Brilliant; CFC__VRWC; ConservativeMan55; CT; Delta 21; earplug; expatpat; finnman69; GretchenEE; HAL9000; hellinahandcart; JackRyanCIA; JasonC; JohnnyZ; Mad_Tom_Rackham; maro; MD_Willington_1976; MeekOneGOP; Mia T; mrsmith; NormsRevenge; OldFriend; Poohbah; PureSolace; RWR8189; Semper Paratus; SevenofNine; Shermy; Spruce; StriperSniper; tallhappy; tubavil; VOA; XHogPilot

---

[BillyBoy]

How DARE they intrude on the South Korean President's PRIVATE life!! It's between him, his family, and his God. IMPEACH the special prosecutor appointed to investigate his corruption. That's the guy who should REALLY go to jail!!! How dare they try to overturn THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!! Read the polls! Look how good THE ECONOMY is in South Korea!!

Oh, unless his party affliation is Republican... < /MOVEON.ORG>

[maro]

Roh ran on an anti-US platform. Think of Roh as the South Korean Dennis Kucinich. Roh is a labor activist and left-wing agitator. Roh also does not have a college degree. It is amazing he got elected in a country that reveres educational attainment. Roh has been dogged by the fact that those close to him, including his brother, accepted bribes. Of late, Roh has complained that the job was too tough for him, and that he didn't know what to do. It has long been rumored that Roh is a crypto-Communist. He is certainly at least a fellow traveller. It is likely that if he is removed from office, any successor will likely be more pro-US, and pro business.

[maro]

I have to disagree. Roh got in because of a strong anti-US sentiment among the under 30 generation. In other words, democracy. It is hard to think of Roh as feudal faction leader. The very idea is comical. Faction politics during the monarchy was based on the fact that the king held absolute power. Factions that could influence the king thereby obtained power. There is no king in South Korean politics, for the simple reason that South Korea is a democracy. The obstreperous behavior of the Uri party may strike us as odd, but is it odder than a Senate filibuster to prevent W's judicial nominees from being confirmed? More extreme, but the same basic idea.

[Styria]

In that case, oh-roh!

[JasonC]

Of course it is a democracy. I am talking about the cultural aspects of what is considered possible behavior. Nobody would ever start a fistfight on the floor of the Senate because of a filibuster. It is unthinkable, culturally speaking. The background mores on which the Senate operates are those of a New England town meeting. It seems to me that background of mores is absent in Korea and also in Japan. I am sure they are committed to democracy and understand its value and benefits. But they aren't operating it the same way we do, it does not fit into previous culture the same way ours does. Want another Korean example? We have demonstrations and confrontations with police regularly. Usually orderly, sometimes not but not violent, occasionally violent but when so, extremely disorganized. A Korean labor riot looks like a roman battle by comparison.

[maro]

There were fistfights in the U.S. Senate in the 19th century, yet America never had feudalism.

[OahuBreeze]

hmmmm -- think everyone's a bit too jubilant. Across the board, polls in South Korea show 60% and up disagree with the impeachment. Roh's defacto party, Uri Party, has gained a lot of ground at expense of opposition parties GNP and MDP.

The actual thing the GNP and MDP impeached Roh on is very grey (violating political neutrality of executive office by saying he would do everything he could, within the law, to get Uri party members elected in April elections...). In my opinion, Constitutional Court will reinstate Roh's powers within a month, and Uri party will likely gain considerable number of seats in April elections. Of course, numerous things could change the equation -- not least of which being the puffy tyrant up north.

[Law]

Looks like a Three Stooges film.

There is a good reason. Under Korean law, wrestling, pushing, and the like are permitted. Legal liability attaches to the first one to throw a punch.

[GretchenEE]

Interesting law.

[GretchenEE]

Thank you very much for taking the time to post your insights on this brouhaha. Very helpful.