Every year, we toy with New Year’s resolutions only to fall back on established patterns. At the same time, we look back at past year and try to predict events in the new year, but the future rarely follows a script. Change, after all, is hard to see and even harder to predict. Talking a longer view helps us see trends with greater perspective, which gives us deeper insight into a possible future.

In thinking about Korea’s future, the long view, both past and present, is more important than 2016 or 2017. And how that future will be shaped depends on what Koreans want and what kind of leaders they will choose. It really is a question of politics.

Most people don’t think about politics, particularly in good times. But if 2016 taught us anything, it is that politics count and that elections matter. Politics can be good and bad. Good politics is when a consensus emerges on a direction that benefits as many people as possible. Bad politics is when divisions inhibit a consensus and policy favors the few over the many. Good politics leads to good economics, which nurtures more good politics. Bad politics leads to bad economics and eventual collapse or revolution.

The difference between good and bad politics is often dramatic. In the 20th century, Germany collapsed into the hands of Adolf Hitler but later blossomed into a prosperous democracy that now leads the EU. China experienced war and political turmoil for most of the 20th century, but changed its focus to economic development and by some accounts is the largest economy in the world.

Stable democracies, too, have their ups and downs. In the US, the Great Depression and the Cold War created a consensus in favor of promoting the growth of the middle class to create social stability. In the aftermath of World War II, European nations followed a similar path and worked to break down destructive nationalism by building European institutions. Japan followed a similar path as well. The result was a long period of good politics and progress in these countries.

So where is Korea now? Beginning in the 1960s, Korea focused on industrialization which began the basis of efforts to create a middle class. Like the US, Europe and Japan, the creation of a middle class was seen as a key to promoting social stability to counter external threats. Korea is different from the others in that the external threat of North Korea continues to exist. The threat from the Soviet Union has been replaced by multiple threats.

The end of the Soviet threat and the “peace dividend” coincided with the move away from policies that focused on the middle class. Slowly good politics has given way to mediocre politics that has left large segments of society alienated and angry, which has fed populist movements in most major democracies. How social elites deal with the populism will determine whether good politics re-emerges or bad politics takes over.

In 2017, Korea, too, finds itself mired in mediocre politics. The current president has been impeached amid a populist wave of outrage at her incompetence. The scandal has exposed a web of corruption and connections in the elite that has fanned the flames of discontent yet further.

The question for Korea in 2017 is whether it can start to turn mediocre politics into good politics. The presidential election offers a chance for leaders to put forth a vision for the country, which is the first step toward building a consensus. To succeed, that vision must return to the 20th-century focus on nurturing a strong middle class while advancing democratic values.

Several problems come to mind. Compared to other advanced countries, the number senior citizens living in poverty in Korea is high. Many of them have fallen out of the middle class after retirement, often in their 50s. As the Korean population ages, the number of people falling out of the middle class after retirement will continue to grow, causing further erosion of the middle class.

At the other end of the spectrum, young people have trouble saving enough to buy a home. This is hardly unique to Korea, but affordability remains lower than most other countries.

With competition in export markets and the continuing North Korean threat, mediocre politics poses a special problem for Korea. To restore good politics, potential leaders should articulate a vision that protects and expands the middle class.


By Robert J. Fouser

Robert J. Fouser, a former associate professor of Korean language education at Seoul National University, writes on Korea from Ann Arbor, Michigan. He can be reached at kagoshimabob@gmail.com. -- Ed.