ID :
208741
Thu, 09/22/2011 - 02:09
Auther :
Shortlink :
https://oananews.org//node/208741
The shortlink copeid
Dispute over democracy
(EDITORIAL from the Korea Times on Sept. 22)
Dispute over democracy
Korea is caught up in another controversy over history textbooks. This time, the war of words is not being fought against Japanese officials trying to glorify their militarist past but among Koreans themselves ??? over democracy.
Nine advisors to a government panel for developing a history curriculum resigned Tuesday to protest the education ministry???s unilateral move to change the term ``democracy??? to ``liberal democracy.???
Laypersons might feel confused over the fuss among academics over the two seemingly similar phrases. Even those, especially foreigners, with theoretical backgrounds would find the difference not so serious. For ideology-driven Korean intellectuals, however, the gap between the two terms is poles apart.
Both conservatives and progressives support democracy of course. Yet, the former group says the word democracy is vague and too wide in scope, and can include the ``people???s democracy??? in North Korea. The latter counters the term liberal democracy confines democracy to the frame of anti-communism and market idolatry. Neither is faithful to academic concepts of the terms bound by ideological biases.
The progressives are right to point out that ex-President Park Chung-hee put liberal democracy into the Constitution in 1972 to justify his prolonged rule by differentiating the South???s ``Koreanized??? ??? or authoritarian ??? democracy from North Korea???s proletariat democracy.
But we don???t think Korea???s extraordinary modern history marked by fratricidal war and national division should change the original meaning of academic concepts. There is nothing wrong with liberal democracy itself, meaning a representative democracy that stresses rule of law, freedom of individuals and the rights of minorities, all of which are values this nation has sought and will be seeking. The time has long past for the nation to stop letting peculiarities distort the general principle.
That said, the ministry???s one-sided procedure in changing the wording by excluding advisors and researchers deserves criticism as neither democratic nor liberal.
Practice is always far more important than theory.
(END)
Dispute over democracy
Korea is caught up in another controversy over history textbooks. This time, the war of words is not being fought against Japanese officials trying to glorify their militarist past but among Koreans themselves ??? over democracy.
Nine advisors to a government panel for developing a history curriculum resigned Tuesday to protest the education ministry???s unilateral move to change the term ``democracy??? to ``liberal democracy.???
Laypersons might feel confused over the fuss among academics over the two seemingly similar phrases. Even those, especially foreigners, with theoretical backgrounds would find the difference not so serious. For ideology-driven Korean intellectuals, however, the gap between the two terms is poles apart.
Both conservatives and progressives support democracy of course. Yet, the former group says the word democracy is vague and too wide in scope, and can include the ``people???s democracy??? in North Korea. The latter counters the term liberal democracy confines democracy to the frame of anti-communism and market idolatry. Neither is faithful to academic concepts of the terms bound by ideological biases.
The progressives are right to point out that ex-President Park Chung-hee put liberal democracy into the Constitution in 1972 to justify his prolonged rule by differentiating the South???s ``Koreanized??? ??? or authoritarian ??? democracy from North Korea???s proletariat democracy.
But we don???t think Korea???s extraordinary modern history marked by fratricidal war and national division should change the original meaning of academic concepts. There is nothing wrong with liberal democracy itself, meaning a representative democracy that stresses rule of law, freedom of individuals and the rights of minorities, all of which are values this nation has sought and will be seeking. The time has long past for the nation to stop letting peculiarities distort the general principle.
That said, the ministry???s one-sided procedure in changing the wording by excluding advisors and researchers deserves criticism as neither democratic nor liberal.
Practice is always far more important than theory.
(END)
