Whatever the many moral arguments, ideologies, and logic there may be at the moment, the choosing of a new president must begin in reflection, appraisal, and judgment of the past five years and times before that. If the country is going to develop, I think its going to happen by adding on to that which is desirable as that which is lacking gets filled in.

Over the last five years (or maybe before that), our society has fallen way off track. If you were to note one primary reason why the members of our society are so exhausted, it would clearly have to be the absence of law and order, or the discriminatory application of egoism. The law "might as well not be there," and people came to think they didn't have to follow the law. We have laws and structures, but from the echelons of the regime itself we saw attempts to circumvent, or otherwise go around the system to do as they wanted. Instead of the law and the system, we had presidential directives and intentions to interpret everything about what happened; and this got to the point where it created an "emperor." "Illegality" and "legal violation" became everyday occurrences, while the sense that this was something that they need to feel ashamed about did not exist.

Restoring law and order, revising the laws that are out of touch with reality to bring authority back to that law and order; making this happen through concrete policy and setting the country straight is the task that awaits the next president. Democracy isn't possible when law and order are abused in the interest of power and where illegality and violation of the law stand unchallenged. This is why the question of which candidate makes law and order his conviction, and will be more dedicated to making it happen is something that needs to be a standard in making the right choice.

In the past, it was "divisiveness" (pyeongareugi) that so seriously damaged our society. All societies can have differing views and subsequent confrontation and friction. When it's confrontation about ideology, there are healthy aspects to the confrontation. The divisiveness that exists in our society, however, has not occurred naturally, it is not evolutional, nor complementary. It has been incited in the course of the forced implementation of policy, a tendency to force one's opponent into submission instead of compromise, this by creating a social structure of conflict and division. North Korea policy would be a fine example.

It's why some have come to see everyone that isn't exactly on their side as the enemy, or suggest that if the other guy wins they're all going to die, and the desperate "to the death rush to survive even if Heaven should split in two." What we need for president at this juncture is a leader who truly knows how to keep the people from fearing each other, who knows how to make differences of position something to compromise on; someone who has the philosophy and conviction to accept and coexist instead of engage in reprisals. We are at the point where more so than ever before, what we need is not a president who is more interested in insulting his opponent but one who talks about his own ideas for progress.

If there is anything that has been ruined, or miserably pushed to the side in government priority, that would be education. It was the power of education over the years that helped Korea survive in this harsh world. The commonly held view that even if a family can't eat all its meals and was as poor as can be, the children must nevertheless be educated was an understanding that turned the whole country to learning. The effectiveness of Korean education, however, has been going downhill. Education at the hands of governmental authorities, at the hands of political convenience, and at the hands of parent egotism, has been in a state of collapse, and now all that's left of Korean education is the skeleton. There might be many ways to make the country work right. Preventing corruption, good economic policy, the division of power, the independence of judicial branch agencies, right and appropriate personnel appointments, prudent diplomacy, and others may be required subjects for the president. All these things, however, are only things that can be done after the country is on the right track. Getting the country to work right in the first place ? that is the role of education. We watch with great interest to see who will see the problem for what it is and declare himself ready to engage in education reform.

What was most distressing for us under this outgoing government and what was so alienating was the problem of regionalism. If the government of Kim Dae-jung is ultimately seen to be a failed government, then the cause will have to be the inability to go beyond region in the making of appointments. Attachment to one region invites the grievance of another, and Kim Dae-jung took this plain fact too lightly. We want to see a president who will overcome differences of region. If he gets past this one problem, he will be forever recorded in Korean history for being an evenhanded president.

All this and still, at this very moment, the candidate are laying out promises that irritate regional sentiment, this while attacking their opponents for inciting regionalism. The next president's philosophy, policy, character, speech and behavior, and past will all be important, but right now we're not playing a game where we pick who will be good at politics, who's the most remarkable, or who talks better than the others. What we're looking for is a leader who, before moving to implement concrete policy, will have the conviction to penetrate our hurt and heal us over the next five years.

(Chosun Ilbo Executive Editor) November 30, 2002