The 2012 presidential election is expected to be a watershed moment in Korean politics as it will decide the direction of Korean economic policies now that we’ve gone through administrations from all sides of the ideological spectrum.

In 2008, the people cast their votes for President Lee Myung-bak on the desperate hope economic growth and material prosperity would resolve the nagging wealth disparity problems.

Almost five years have passed, and the situation has worsened ― to the point that even the ruling party candidate is promoting economic democratization to ensure fair play and equal distribution.

As both the ruling and opposition have conceded, the main challenges that the Korean economy and future leader will have to tackle are indeed the concentration and abuse of wealth, along with offering equal opportunities to all economic participants.

But one thing to be clear about is that economic democratization is not the same as political democratization: the term does not indicate an equal distribution of economic power. Rather, it means to provide equal opportunities to compete and keep participants from abusing wealth as a means of empowerment.

To figure out which candidate has the intention of pursuing economic democratization in this genuine sense of the term, the voters must be able to look into the economic values that each candidate upholds.

Park Geun-hye of the Saenuri Party is decidedly on the side of growth, conglomerates and vested power. Her election pledges are just that: pledges. She has eased up on her stance on conglomerate control, and is also the candidate representing a party that previously condemned economic democratization as economic populism, and the party that garners undivided support from conglomerates.

Moon Jae-in of the Democratic United Party, meanwhile, does not have any connections with the vested economic powers, and his party has been from the start opposed to conglomerates and their reckless expansion.

His version of economic democratization is harsher than Park’s in that it includes actual game plans for keeping chaebol owners from making circular equity investments. He also has accepted most of the reforms devised by the opposition and liberals, proving he is determined to pursue the changes.

On small and mid-sized companies, Park champions fair opportunities, offering ways such as the creation of a social body specializing in such issues. There is little content or details to the idea.

Moon, on the other hand, offers more details to support his reform ideas.

On protecting the alley stores, Park calls for establishing a separate fund to support them, but it needs to be seen whether the government can come up with that kind of money. There also are accusations of it being a populist pledge.

Again, Moon has better details for this, proposing the designation of companies exclusive for smaller businesses, and limiting the operating hours and new openings of large retailers.

On housing, Moon is outlining ways to increase cheaper public housing, which is not quite up to par, but still better as a mid- and long-term policy pledge, compared to Park.

In general, Park is more hung up on the details and regulating specific acts, while Moon is focused on actual structural reforms.

Voters must acknowledge these differences in the election pledges of the two candidates when they cast their votes on Dec.19. They need to figure out which candidate is more sincere about his or her ideas and plans for pursuing economic democratization, for this is a choice that will decide the future.

By Kim Sun-woong
Executive director, Center for Good Corporate Governance