THE CORONAVIRUS AND DEMOCRATIC LEADERS: PRESIDENT MOON?

6/4/2020

Today, we are going to case study Korea and the coronavirus from a very particular angle; the impact that it has had on the authority and legitimacy of leaders. Post by inserting a comment above.

Read this article from the KOREA TIMES first: ‘Bravo President Moon’ Interesting links to make here.

i) Read it at face value. What does this demonstrate about legitimacy in a democracy? In what ways has Moon fulfilled the functions of the state; what would Weber say?
ii) Think about how the tone of the article might seem to an ‘outsider’. Does this suggest a a more realist interpretation of why the government has benefitted from the coronavirus.

Now read this great article from Foreign Policy

i) What’s your view of Korean society? Do you think that the author is completely right to discount cultural factors - I’d be very interested to have your insights here.
ii) If we take his argument to be at least somewhat accurate, why might western democratic leaders make this kind of argument about the success of Korea.
iii) What does this show us about the importance of recognising relativism and universalism when we see it. Is it right for the same people to flit between the two positions whenever they want to?

TO POST, SIMPLY USE COMMENTS FUNCTION TO ADD YOUR THOUGHTS. Remember forum etiquette - no more than 10 lines per post, focus on one main idea, use 'add'/'challenge'/'build' language if you want to respond to anyone else's points. BUT you are encouraged to post as much as you like!

6 Comments

Seb

7/4/2020 08:14:44 am

1. KOREA TIMES
As soon as I saw this article, I remember my father saying “coronavirus outbreak is getting relieved because of the government’s effective treatment” and I know that he wasn’t in support of him in the past. This effective handling of coronavirus situation by the government, whether someone argues that it is not really the government’s work but medical workers’, immensely increased the legitimacy of the current government in South Korea, which will definitely have influence in the 2020 legislative election next Wednesday.The correlation between the number of coronavirus patients and legitimacy of the government is shown in many graphs, data, statistics, which is not completely trustworthy but gives an overview of the public perception of the government. I think Weber would say that President Moon, South Korea has fulfilled some functions of the state, not necessarily with the use of physical force that is more obvious. The government’s actions including transparency of patents’ movements, banning social gatherings are typical examples of domination exercised over the state and inhabitants, which some may disagree as it did not use military force but it limits people’s freedom for a communal good, which I think Weber would argue as a function of a state as it is a collective action for the good of general public.I think this suggests a more realist interpretation of why the government has benefited because it shows the increase of legitimacy, which gives the state more power to control the state and an increase in internal sovereignty. Also, the power of South Korea at an international scale also increased due to its high-tech medical development that many states wish to acquire.

7/4/2020 08:15:55 am

2. Foreign Policy
I agree with the article that we should discount cultural factors. Their influence in the outbreak itself is mere. People are as selfish as (what the article calls) more individualistic western people. People do not stop buying paper towels for the country or the benefit of the community. They just don’t feel the need to buy them. I think western democratic leaders can portray the government’s lack of effective treatment as natural and inevitable. As the public is dissatisfied with the government’s handling in comparison with Asian countries, they can portray Asian countries as naturally different “species” and argue that we can never be like them, this situation is the best that we can do, which may act as a shield to protect the destruction of legitimacy.To me, in these health crisis such as virus outbreak, it is somewhat meaningless to use relativism because it provides neither causes nor solutions of the outbreak. We need to look at countries at the same angle and then find out what is going well in certain countries that is not in the others, which has a basis on universalism.

Hailey

7/4/2020 08:29:11 am

The article shows that the legitimacy of leaders increase significantly both internally and internationally when they demonstrate their ability to successfully lead a government which fulfils the necessary functions of a state. Moon can be seen as having fulfilled the function of the state in this case mainly by providing for the health and safety of the population and ensuring that the state is organised and efficient in doing so. The article suggests that as a result of this, the legitimacy of Moon has increased significantly. The author also seems to partly share the view of Weber, that the increased legitimacy of Moon through this case is due to Moon having “made himself visible and accountable”, reinforcing his charisma as a leader. With Weber identifying three features (tradition, legal-rational base, charisma) as sources of legitimate power, he may possibly suggest that the increase in the charisma of the leader has been the source of the increased legitimacy. He could view Moon’s apparent success in dealing with a crisis as having allowed him to appear competent and heroic, increasing the number of those who are devoted to the leader as an exceptionally able and charismatic figure. However, I would argue that the personal quality of Moon has not stood out so much as the government’s overall capability to deal swiftly with a crisis and that the increased legitimacy is more a result of the exhibition of the state’s ability to successfully fulfill its functions even in times of crisis which has fostered a sense of pride and trust among the population for the state.

Seunghoon

7/4/2020 09:09:53 am

The first article demonstrates that legitimacy of a democratic state or leader increase significantly when it showcases the ability to undertake necessary functions of a legitimate state actor. For example, the way president Moon dealt with the Coronavirus epidemic successfully fulfilled the functions of state by protecting the health and safety of the Korean citizens and showing strong central control of the government–– this, in turn, led to a great increase in Moon's legitimacy. This aligns with Weber's interpretation of increased legitimacy as tradition, charisma, and legal base: the article argues that this prompt action by the Moon administration has helped increase the charisma of the president and thus contributed to an increase in Moon's legitimacy.

Ryan Pak

7/4/2020 09:33:30 am

It cannot be disputed that South Korea’s success in handling the COVID pandemic has increased the legitimacy of President Moon both at home and abroad. The increased public support for his administration serves as a boost for his party in the upcoming legislative election. Weber would argue that President Moon has successfully satisfied the functions of the state through the provision of effective healthcare and the use of technology to notify the detailed tracking of the movements of coronavirus patients. In the case of President Moon, it is clear that he endeavored to demonstrate his charisma as a response to the outbreak of COVID, cautious not to repeat the mistake of his predecessor who was impeached due to the lack of swift and decisive action. Although the article commends the success of President Moon, his failures to prevent the initial spread of the virus in Korea must be noted. His response to the outbreak of the pandemic in China in the early stages—export of mask and failure to close borders—has contributed to the accelerated increase of COVID patients in Korea as many people, especially those in Daegu, struggled to find supply for masks and Chinese tourists with symptoms of COVID were let free to move around the country. If there had been more masks available and effective measures to limit the entry of Chinese (like many countries are doing to the Koreans), the spread of COVID within Korea would have been significantly lower. It can thus be argued that Moon essentially risked the wellbeing of his own people for the sake of what he referred as a “diplomatic approach” to the virus. Moreover, the Moon administration has ordered and is planning to extend strict policies which essentially demand for voluntary closure of businesses such as saunas, fitness suites, karaokes temporarily without the provision of any forms of subsidies. Combined with the earlier increase in minimum wage—one of the first changes that Moon’s administration brought—self-employed people are struggling under the newly adopted policy as they are having to pay the wages of their workers without any sales. As a result, President Moon put pressure on landlords to cut rental costs for self-employed businesses, also forcing an economic burden on the landlords. Hence, it is the people of South Korea (those who have endured such hardship and wholeheartedly followed the government regulations) that deserve more credit for the country being an exemplar for other countries suffering from COVID. As the second article avers, the role of cultural factors are minimal when discussing South Korea’s success. Given that Western culture and values are deeply embedded in contemporary Korean society by the dissemination of Western contents through social media and internet, attributing Korea’s success to its Confucian ideals is merely an effort to draw a line between the Western and the Eastern hemisphere, alluding to an exhausted stereotype of the East as an excuse for the lack of effective response to the virus in the West. The significance of universalism must be underscored because a successful solution in handling the pandemic of one country can be shared with and adopted by any other countries. Relativism may only further discourage Western governments to adopt what they perceive to be as ‘Eastern solutions’ that are not applicable to their own countries.

7/4/2020 10:13:35 am

2. Foreign Policy

It is plausible to argue that the reason behind the prompt response of the Moon administration against the Coronavirus epidemic was not influenced by the traditions or cultural factors inherent to Koreans. Following rapid industrialization, modernization, and urbanization in late 20th century, individualism has became prominent in Korean society and thus the notion that Korea is a country in which Confucianism is deeply embedded is no longer arguable. It can be analyzed that western democratic leaders used this as an excuse for them to escape from the blame they would get from the international society and to justify that the failure to deal with the virus was not because of their incompetence but because of the disparity between the situations in Asian countries and Western states. This example shows that even the process of recognizing relativism and universalism is subjective and disputable.

THE CORONAVIRUS AND DEMOCRATIC LEADERS: PRESIDENT MOON?

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

Categories