[Wang Son-taek] Problems beneath political polarization

Political violence and unprecedented upheavals are taking place around the world, and the level of anxiety is also being raised. Former US President Donald Trump was shot, but saving his life with some millimeters of margin escape was enough to shake the global community. About a week later, President Joe Biden said he was stepping aside as the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party. Earlier in May, Prime Minister of Slovakia Roberto Pizzo was shot and almost killed by a gunman. In June, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen was attacked by an unidentified man while walking through a square. In Germany, ministers and lawmakers were attacked and injured by some assailants one after another. In Japan, two years ago, then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was shot and killed by a gunman during a campaign rally. Violence also occurred in South Korea during the recent primary race for the ruling People's Power Party.

The violence and disruptions took place in various forms in different parts of the world, but they have one thing in common: They are the result of polarization that has reached extreme levels. As Trump is known to have led the polarization of the United States, it is ironic that such a figure almost fell victim to political terrorism. President Biden's announcement of his resignation is also related to polarization. This is the result of giving in to the stern demand from the Democratic side that he must resign to prevent former President Trump from being elected in November. The incidents in Slovakia, Denmark and Japan can also be seen as crimes to resolve dissatisfaction with government policies in an extreme way. In the case of Korea, violence occurred as the primary to elect the ruling party leader overheated. This shows that Korea is also not an exception to the side effects of polarization.

The problem is that polarization is a phenomenon and not a cause of the violence. If we want to eliminate political terrorism, it is necessary to find out the cause of it. A prescription for solving the problem can be made only when the cause is known. What is the reason, then? We need to note that the end of the Cold War in 1991 changed many things, including the world order. The 9/11 terrorist attack was a symbolic event. The attack was committed by a group of extremist Muslims who were angry at the foreign policies of the United States. The major problem with the policies was globalization, which was based on neoliberalism. Though globalization was a device that spread the leadership of the United States worldwide, it also increased the voices to oppose it. It caused polarization in many parts of the world, including the United States.

Neoliberalism is the link between globalization and polarization. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, the United States has adopted neoliberal guidelines and pursued globalization to promote the freest movement of capital, goods and labor at the global level. However, globalization has created market disruptions. Rapid economic fluctuations, social dissatisfaction and anxiety have been caused by globalization throughout the 9/11 terrorist attack in 2001, the financial crisis in 2008 and the refugee crisis in 2015. In the case of the United States, imports of low-priced products from other nations, including China, put American companies and workers in trouble. It has become common for the white working class to fail to even get temporary jobs, such as workers at large retailers, due to the influx of cheap labor from Central or South America. With the influx of illegal immigrants, major European countries have also experienced social conflicts between those who prefer moderate policies and those who prefer hardline policies over the treatment of them.

Neoliberalism tended to emphasize economic factors and freedom of expression, an element of liberal democracy, to the fullest extent. As a result, it also destroyed the practice of "political correctness," a speech courtesy that considers social minorities, and of "diplomatic prudence," self-restraint so as not to provoke other countries or political forces unnecessarily. Politics, which excludes consideration and moderation in a situation where social dissatisfaction and anxiety are swollen, has settled into a monstrous game that divides voters in half and incites voters' dissatisfaction and anger with an extreme curse against the other side.

Under the US-led world order, the possibility of war between countries was dramatically reduced. Even after the end of the Cold War, wars took place worldwide, but most of them were civil wars or the US military operations against so-called rogue states. The war between Russia and Ukraine is indeed ongoing, but it is different from the typical war in that it is a rebellious act of Russia against the US-led order. This decrease in the likelihood of war is also a factor that intensifies polarization. Emphasizing partisan interests rather than national interests to persuade voters has created a much more favorable situation in preserving the interest structure of politicians.

We can find ways to reduce political terrorism if it has been confirmed that the cause of it is polarization and that neoliberalism and globalization are the causes of polarization. For sustainable neoliberalism, we need to review introducing regulations on the global flow of capital, goods and labor. This part is already proceeded in the name of "economic security." Neoliberalism can be seen as undergoing self-purification as a form of capitalism. For the better future of globalization, efforts must be made to consider and respect the characteristics of each region. It is necessary to keep political correctness and diplomatic prudence in place and to maximize the education programs that teach those values to the top leaders of major countries through continuous and active efforts of intellectuals.

Wang Son-taek

Wang Son-taek is an adjunct professor at Sogang University. He is a former diplomatic correspondent at YTN and a former research associate at Yeosijae. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. -- Ed.