Lee Myung-bak as a reminder that Korea is not as Confucian as some would want us to think.

     Lee Myung-bak, the candidate of the conservative Grand National Party, won a significant electoral victory in South Korea's presidential poll yesterday.  The elections were free and fair, though turnout was relatively low (about 63%), and Lee captured about 48.7 % of the vote, which gave him a historically high 22.6 or so percentage point lead over his nearest rival.

     He is described as a pragmatist with ethical issues.  Vowing to ramp up the country's economic growth, he faces an investigation into manipulating stocks of a company, BBK, he founded.  As one voter, interviewed by the NYT, said:

“I voted for Lee Myung-bak even though I think he’s a little corrupt,” said Kim Cho-rong, 21, a college student studying interior design. “I figured someone who is a little guilty but competent was better for our society than someone who is innocent but incompetent.”

     And perhaps, given the messy world of politics, that's OK.  But one thing we can say about Lee's election is that it would likely draw a frown from Confucius.

      This thought comes to me as I read lines like this, from the Marmot's Hole:

The election of Lee Myung-bak (assuming it survives the ongoing BBK investigation) is break from the ideologically-driven politics of Korea’s past. His campaign has explicitly said that “economic considerations must receive higher priority than political considerations.”

     Giving so much priority to economic issues, especially in the relatively well off South Korea (something like the 13th richest country in the world), strays from the path of the Master.  Think about this man-on-the-street comment from the WaPo:

"No one is absolutely clean when you strip-search successful and wealthy businessmen in Korea," said Ahn Jae-woo, 54, an insurance executive who voted for Lee early today before going Christmas shopping with his family in a Seoul mall. "This election is not about ethical issues, it's about who is really capable of making Korea prosperous."

      It's all about "prosperity," making people richer, allowing them to live more comfortable lives.  Forget the ethics.   Now, I will not criticize Koreans for making that choice.  It's perfectly understandable, especially coming after a president, Roh Moo-hyun, who overplayed the political ethics card and let the economy sag.  But, whatever we think of Lee's victory, it is not in keeping with Confucianism.

      This passage from the Analects seems to speak directly to not only Lee himself but to Korea voters in general:

The Master said: “Wealth and position – that’s what people want. But if you enjoy wealth and position without following Way, you’ll never dwell at ease. Poverty and obscurity – that’s what people despise. And if you endure poverty and obscurity without following the Way, you’ll never get free.
“If you ignore Humanity, how will you gain praise and renown? The noble-minded don’t forget Humanity for a single moment, not even in the crush of confusion and desperation.”  Analects 4.5

     Even when times are bad, even when the economy is growing slower than it might, you can't forget the ethics, you can't ignore Humanity.

     Confucius would not have voted for Lee.

Comments

[The Western Confucian]

Great post. As a resident of Korea, I couldn't agree more.

[The Western Confucian]

Thinking about this further, my guess is that the Sage would have voted for Moon Kook-hyun, who, as CEO of Yuhan-Kimberly, during the The IMF Crisis of 1997, "developed a new shift system where workers worked twelve-hours shifts for four days running, then took four days off" rather than laying them off. Mr. Moon garnered a mere 5.8% of the vote, perhaps proving your point.

[Larry]

Korea is not very confucian, it is just the most confucian. China has abandon the confucian ways for decades. China is just spreading confucianism with Communist characteristics, not the real stuff. Japan has never been truly confucian, and neither was Vietnam.

As for ruling power, confucius values lineage the most, not ideology. If your father is the emperor, you have legitimacy no matter how immoral and unethical you are. Confucius only advise rulers to be nice to people so that they can keep their reign. It was never advocated as the way to seize the reign. In Chinese history, you get to be the ruler through use of force, or inheritance. Since CPC don't use inheritance formally, there is only one other way.