At the end of the 1980s any attempt to realize leftist ideology was seen as destructive and not allowed; it only was accepted after the fall of Communism. These days it is allowed and is considered irrelevant as long as it does not damage the country. In Korea, the Democratic Workers' Party has failed to acquire a single seat in the National Assembly, showing the ideology in the country's politics.

Meanwhile there are many politicians armed with a progressive ideology; most in the Millennium Democratic Party, but also some in the Grand National Party. This may reflect the people's view that it is too early to have a "progressive" political party, but there is a need for progressive politicians. In this respect, Roh Moo-hyun was right when he said the MDP was not progressive, as nobody thinks of the party as a leftist one, but rather a conservative one with leftist politicians.

Especially from the viewpoint of the DWP, Roh can never be called progressive, nor from that of the MDP's Kim Keun-tae and GNP's Lee Bu-young; at best they would regard him as compromised. When there were discussions on his ideology at the party primaries, former activists were cynical in their reaction to Roh.

According to a survey, less than 10% of society regards themselves as progressives, but this trend is rising and so in this respect Roh can be seen as a man with progressive ideas, while not being a progressive.

Currently Roh is far from his ideology when he entered politics, but he maintained progressive ideas by saying things such as "there would have been no division of the country if nationalists had taken over the government after liberation. Therefore the Republic of Korea is a country created by divisionists." He also expressed admiration for Europe's social democracies.

Another way to see a politicians ideology is to look at his feelings towards the US and North Korea; President Kim Dae-jung was cool towards Washington, but enthusiastic to Pyongyang. Roh said he would not visit the US just to be photographed, and this can be interpreted that he will follow Kim's approach in principle.

In Korea the ideological median is not to bow to the US or North Korea and to maintain equality in relations. In this area Lee Hoi-chang can be classed as a rightist conservative, as he would never bow to Pyongyang and would maintain good relations with Washington. On the other hand, Roh could be classed as more leftist than Kim as the latter visited the US to have his picture taken.

A presidential campaign without a discussion on ideology is a blind one, and so there should be a comprehensive debate on the candidates' beliefs morality and policies. However, this should not be a repeat of past discussions, which were more like a "McCarthy" style purge. These days nobody believes a candidate should step down because he is progressive; in the MDP primaries, people didn't vote for Rhee In-je who attacked Roh's ideology negatively.

Instead people should look positively and more thoroughly at the candidates' ideology, and any of the latter who refuse to or condemn this as a purge is admitting he has no vision for the future. This would be extremely dishonest and two-faced. It is not that difficult a request for Roh to disclose his vision for the future, by admitting to being progressive and revealing his policies if elected.

(Chosun Ilbo Editorial Writer)

November 29, 2002