Typing "Korea parliament" into the Google search bar results in the word "fight" appearing as an auto-complete. Algorithm-generated content features videos showcasing fierce physical confrontations within the National Assembly, which are often reported by international media. Lawmakers engaging in fights and wrestling near the Speaker's podium, where the gavel is located, create a dramatic display comparable to American football. However, there is no reason for specific embarrassment—such incidents are typical in the parliaments of emerging democracies.
These unpredictable yet energetic moments, reflecting the urgency and desperation of late democracies, might now be fading from recollection. Physical conflicts within the National Assembly have become uncommon. A confrontation only arises when the opposing sides are evenly matched. The ruling party, now overwhelmingly powerful, no longer requires physical force to advance its goals. The opposition, unable to match this strength, brings its disputes onto the streets, causing inconvenience to bystanders. The current National Assembly has transformed into a political studio, constantly generating high-pitched speeches and soundbites aimed at dedicated supporters. Physical altercations, which do not work well on camera, are not beneficial for media-savvy politicians. One might long for the courage of earlier politicians, when physical confrontations were more frequent.
The general public's views are confused between a ruling party that no longer pays attention to them and an opposition party that fails to understand them. The phrase "public sentiment (vox populi)" comes from the time of monarchies. Even during the Joseon Dynasty, when women by the river talked about government matters, public sentiment was present. Without media or surveys, wise rulers would go out at night to hear it. The idea transformed into "public opinion" during Europe's Enlightenment, as civil society developed. Modern democracies use surveys and ensure a free press—tools to bring public opinion into politics.
A righteous ruler could make a monarchy acceptable, yet politics fueled by the pride and selfishness of common individuals is even more distasteful. A parliament lacking in discussion and agreement is equally unimpressive. Our National Assembly, where public opinion is disregarded and views are twisted into propaganda, may no longer merit being called a democratic body.
The governing party, now exercising its authority, is like a tenant who, after moving in, completely renovates the interior to suit their preferences. They make decisions on their own, ignoring any resistance, reducing funds, dividing spaces, and removing others. They even give access codes to troublesome neighbors who were once kept away for security reasons. For those who appreciate the new arrangement, this is exciting. However, those who originally created the structure or are moving items between rooms feel uneasy—“Is this acceptable?” and “This isn’t correct.”
It is a blessing if the tenant permits others to share the shelter and escape the rain. This particular tenant, however, chooses only those they like to reside with, leaving others without a place to stay. Their behavior indicates no plan to leave anytime soon.
The opposition, without power, focuses on losing fights. Although their determination is commendable, their approaches are not favorable or effective. A competitor must first determine their weight class, strengths, and weaknesses. They should strengthen their weaknesses, handle vulnerabilities, and look for outside help. The opposition appears unable to deal with or manage crises such as martial law or impeachment—either then or now. What they require most is "metacognition," the ability to fairly assess themselves.
"Explore the distinction between public sentiment and public opinion" is a query I frequently raise. The response goes like this: "Public sentiment refers to the fragmented, unclear, and generalized views of individuals who are unable to question or oppose the unchecked power of a sovereign leader. Public opinion, on the other hand, represents the reasoned and widely shared collective decision of informed citizens, able to counteract caprice and illogical actions." In essence, public sentiment holds no influence over societal change, whereas public opinion does. Theoretically, public opinion should lead to a more democratic society. But does it?
When used properly, public opinion supports civil society; when corrupted, it can lead to the downfall of democracy. The extensive influence of social media, along with deceptive political content and false information spread for political advantage, can quickly turn democracy into a totalitarian system. As long as politicians focus on manipulating public opinion rather than understanding public feelings, democracy will remain out of reach.
Additional voices need to remind us that this is not the house we initially planned. The spaces were well-proportioned, inhabitants were independent, and leases had set durations. One should take good care of the house during their time there and leave it in good condition for the next occupant. The supporting structures must not be damaged. In addition to the present disorderly politicians, society's framework must come together to safeguard this home. Most importantly, the opposition needs to become more serious, take responsibility, and control the ruling party's overreach.
Posting Komentar