How South Korea’s Elections Determine Who has Power, Not Truth

(East Asia Forum)

When someone thinks of South Korea, they imagine a modern, democratic nation that starkly contrasts with its autocratic and corrupt northern neighbor. And while this perception is somewhat correct, it overlooks the vast levels of corruption that occurs in South Korea. In fact, South Korea only became a true democracy in 1988, rapidly transitioning into what is now perceived as a strong democracy. Despite this, South Korea has failed to achieve the same levels of transparency as most other democracies, enabling rampant corruption to run through the nation's veins.

Since the nation's founding, all South Korean presidents have been marred in scandal and corruption, which has led to South Koreans increasingly perceiving their government as corrupt. Despite these perceptions turning into votes, as they did in Korea’s 2016 presidential election, rampant corruption continues to persist at the highest levels of government. This is exemplified by the resignation of President Moon Jae-in’s Justice Minister, Cho Kuk, in 2019. Cho, despite long-standing allegations of ethical lapses and his family's financial wrongdoings, was appointed by President Moon against parliament's desire. His resignation came only 35 days after his appointment. Cho’s wife, Chung Kyung-sim, was arrested 10 days after his resignation and was later convicted of embezzlement and using forged official documents.

One of the most notable forms of corruption in South Korea is presidential pardons. These pardons are often handed to the richest and most prominent members of society who were convicted of heinous acts, such as embezzlement, forging documents, and corruption. In 2021 alone, President Moon Jae-in pardoned 3,094 people, including his predecessor Park Geun-hye, who was serving time for bribery and other crimes. To put this into perspective, in one day, the President of South Korea issued more pardons than every U.S. president since 1974.

Less shocking is the connection between presidential pardons and the rich. Despite leaders from all four of South Korea’s largest companies being convicted of corruption, alongside many others from prominent business circles, almost none of them face prison time. If they don’t receive a presidential pardon, the courts themselves rule leniently on the businesspeople, conferring fines or sentence suspensions instead. A prime example of this can be found with Lee Kun-hee, the former chairman of Samsung. Lee was convicted twice for white-collar crimes, including tax evasion and bribing the president. He received pardons for both convictions (one of which, it was later discovered, was a consequence of Samsung bribing the president — again). 

The American equivalent of this would be if Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates were caught bribing President Biden and then received a pardon for previously bribing him. Something like this happening in America, or most other strong democracies, however, seems ludicrous. People would take to the streets en masse, as they did when Nixon was pardoned (which, even then, he hadn’t been convicted); they would unseat the sitting president come elections, and the president would go down as one of the worst in history. In South Korea, while there are protests, they are often much smaller and less impactful.

With presidential elections around the corner, many South Koreans are disappointed with their dismal choices. Both of the front-running candidates, Lee Jae-myung of the ruling Minjoo party and Yoon Seok-youl of the opposing People Power Party, are currently under investigation for corruption. This bodes poorly for the millions of South Koreans hoping to see a decline in corruption within their government. However, as exemplified by the primary candidates of the ongoing election, Korea’s politics are seemingly becoming more corrupt, not less.

Transparency International, an organization focused on combating corruption internationally, ranks South Korea as 33 of 180. While this might not seem so bad, it’s actually relatively poor when compared to non-democratic nations such as monarchical Qatar and the UAE oil-state, both of which rank as less corrupt than South Korea. Furthermore, Transparency International focuses on the perception of corruption which skews the scale in Korea’s favor.

Korean culture has become, over time, extremely adjusted to corrupt actions. This has normalized corruption, blinding ordinary South Koreans from perceiving corrupt actions as abnormal or bad. In 2015, the country finally passed a law that banned public servants, journalists, and teachers from accepting cash donations or gifts valued at more than $900 — the first law setting any limits on donations. This new law barred business elites from using their vast wealth to bribe government officials, teachers, and journalists, limiting the capacity of South Korean money to influence social status and policy. While a major step forward in South Korea’s fight against corruption, the cultural normalization of corruption in South Korea is highlighted by this bill’s recency and shows the difficulty in measuring South Korean corruption based on the perception of the population.

The questionability of the presidential candidates, alongside the high number of scandals, pardons, and other forms of corruption in South Korean politics, should be extremely worrisome for South Koreans. They highlight the vast shortcomings and fragility of democracy on the peninsula. This should — and does — concern South Koreans who should take action against corrupt officials in the face of rising corruption.

Specifically, South Koreans should take to the streets and cyberspace to voice their criticism and concerns over their government. By organizing widespread protests and advocacy efforts, South Koreans can not only hold their officials to higher standards but they can also attempt to reverse the grim election prospects this March. By voicing their deep concerns and anger at the current candidates, South Koreans might find an opportunity to elect Ahn Cheol-soo, a conservative politician who leads a smaller party called the People Party.

While the People Party isn’t large enough to garner enough votes to win an election outright, its candidate is not as marred in scandal, and a recent poll put Ahn on top if he aligns with the People Power Party. This, however, can only come to fruition if enough South Koreans protest the current candidates, voicing their support for less corrupt candidates like Ahn. This would push either the Minjoo party or PPP (if not both) to adopt a new candidate who, like Ahn, is less corrupt and more well-received. Ahn’s ascendance to the front of the race would advance the desire of millions of South Koreans looking for a president who can clean up corruption. Furthermore, Ahn’s candidacy is already shaping the election outcomes, with both major candidates carrying disapproval ratings of roughly 60%.

For South Korea’s democracy to have become so accepted by the international community is also a mistake. Most nations don’t bat an eye at South Korea’s high levels of corruption, focusing more on the pieces of government that are truly “democratic.” This empowers South Korean leaders to brag about the successes of their democracy, as President Moon did at President Biden’s “Summit for Democracy” despite its fatal shortcomings. Enabling this kind of behavior not only looks bad for South Korea but also America and other nations in attendance. By allowing a nation that has never had the same levels of transparency or integrity observed in other democratic nations to promote itself as an “exemplary testament” to democracy, democratic nations are damaging their own moral high ground over corrupt governments around the world.

This bodes poorly for Biden, who sees South Korea as an important regional ally that helps counter both China and North Korea. The nation, which is truly a beacon of democracy compared to its autocratic neighbors, is a close ally of America. Should the credibility of its government come into question, it weakens America and democracy’s positions throughout. A president tainted with legitimate allegations of corruption would deal a major blow to Biden’s capacity to counter China and would prove a boon to the autocratic nation.

The biggest worry for South Koreans and other democratic governments, however, is what the future of South Korea’s government will be. If either of the two leading presidential candidates wins the election, critics will likely be more focused on personal scandals rather than policy. This has been foreshadowed by the ongoing political campaigns, both of which are more focused on making ad hominem attacks than discussing policy. By focusing more on the scandals of the president, South Koreans' focus will be drawn away from policy decisions and governing. Instead, the spotlight will be on how the investigation against the president is proceeding and if there are any other allegations of wrongdoing against him or his family.

An ongoing investigation for corruption could create the perception of an illegitimate president, weakening their ability to govern and South Korea’s capacity to interact. This would give other nations, such as China or North Korea, more room to maneuver diplomatically, politically, and economically, potentially harming regional democracy. This would make any South Korean response slow, disjointed, and poorly executed, creating a neutered state with no real reaction capability. Both China and North Korea would utilize the next five years to gain ground in the region against not only South Korea but democracy as a whole, puncturing a whole in the defenses of democracy.

A corrupt South Korean president is also an easy target for China’s state media. By highlighting the president's corruption, China can throw the country into turmoil, using its vast online networks to stir South Koreans onto the streets in protest. This could be used to momentarily paralyze one of America’s key regional allies as internal strife prohibits South Korea from making external actions. By paralyzing South Korea, China can act brazenly, stunting not only South Korea’s power in the region, but America’s as well.

If South Korea’s government were to become temporarily frozen as a result of potential impeachment proceedings, America’s Asian strategy, which relies heavily on the support from key regional allies such as South Korea, could be temporarily thrown into disarray. This could be used by China’s president, Xi Jingping, as an opportunity to, for example, invade Taiwan. With a key ally out of the way, a democratic response would be less unified and much weaker. This same logic would apply if such protests spawned naturally. With Korea distracted by internal strife, China can make daring moves without as much pushback from democratic nations.

Worse off, however, is the threat from South Korea’s northern half. A weakened or chaotic political crisis in the South could give the North a strong, temporary position. This could be exploited by the North in the same ways as China, enabling them to make bolder moves while the South is split. More worrisome, however, is how the North might take advantage of such a crisis to manipulate South Korean voters. 

By implementing tactics akin to those used by Russia in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, North Koreans might be able to heavily influence a South Korean snap election. These elections, which take place if and when a sitting president is impeached by parliament, offer ample opportunity for fringe politicians to rise to the fore. Such elections often occur while the public's attention is on a major scandal, as happened in 2017, further enabling confusion and populism to flourish. This could easily be manipulated by the North to embed a friendlier candidate into the presidency, weakening America’s ability to counter the cult dictatorship.

While South Korea’s democratic institutions are strong enough to thwart any major concerns of a complete autocratic backslide, these types of regime changes often occur slowly, degrading democracy from within. South Koreans must remain alert and aware of their political situation, electing officials who aren’t corrupt and holding them to high standards. They must be willing to protest against presidential candidates like Lee Jae-myung and Yoon Seok-youl, who are attempting to enter office with ongoing investigations. They must be willing to push aside political differences to elect candidates who, while lesser known, are less corrupt. They must be willing to truly fight for democracy at the ballot box.

Democratic nations, such as America, should hold South Korea accountable for its shortcomings to help prevent the nation from fully backsliding. By advocating for strong anti-corruption laws and promoting a cultural shift within South Korean politics and society as a whole, democratic nations can help support democracy in South Korea and other nations. This will not only help South Koreans maintain their freedom but will help balance against the authoritarian regimes pervading throughout Asia, preventing another from slowly joining their ranks.

“Democracy is held captive, not just by money, but by the ideas that money buys.”

William Greider