Who was this Cabinet reshuffle for?

Park Sang-hoon

The author is a political scientist. 

Watching the Democratic Party’s (DP) appointments to party posts on Aug. 25 and the Lee Jae Myung administration’s Cabinet reshuffle on Monday, I was struck by how one came too quickly and the other too late.

The party appointments announced by DP leader Kim Min-seok felt rushed. A prime example was the creation of 10 special bodies, dubbed the Mega 10, to support a “national future growth strategy.” The first was the Mega Growth Special Committee (translated). Would “mega education,” “mega diplomacy” and “mega welfare” follow?

Not at all. The other bodies included groups for nomination reform, party reform and constitutional revision, along with committees for a nationwide youth culture festival on Korean Wave politics, policies for people aged 10 to 30 and a “second Gwanghwamun party headquarters.”

In short, disparate organizations have been lined up without any discernible structure under the unfamiliar Mega 10 label. Is national growth merely a pretext for building a mega party and mega headquarters, perhaps even pursuing a mega constitutional revision? It raises questions about what kind of politician Kim is. He hardly seems inclined to deliberate deeply and prepare calmly.

Perhaps the Blue House asked the party to finish its appointments before the reshuffle, prompting Kim to announce them first and organize the system later. Even so, it is difficult to understand.

If former leader Jung Chung-rae ran the party too much by his own standards, will Kim, by contrast, run it without convictions of his own, following the prevailing winds of power? Either way, a duly elected leader should not act without adequate preparation or reduce himself to a temporary emergency committee chairman.

The administration’s second-year reshuffle, nearly three months after the local elections, came far later than expected. More troubling, despite the delay, it showed little evidence of careful deliberation.

The reshuffle also revealed more about President Lee. He has declared that he will go his own way, unmoved by criticism and intent on his own priorities.

What, then, is public office? Political philosopher Melissa Lane defines it as a position that serves “the good of the governed, not the ruler.” She also warns that a system becomes corrupted when those in power treat public offices as private possessions and distribute them to people devoted to them. By that standard, this reshuffle seems designed less for the good of citizens than for the president’s interests.

For Thomas Hobbes, a founder of modern theories of the state, public office arises from the social contract. Officials entrusted with power through a covenant of trust with the governed have a duty to create a peaceful political community in place of the chaos of the state of nature.

Among those natural laws, Hobbes invoked the Roman maxim that no one can be a judge in his own case. Lee’s reshuffle appears to violate that principle. It was wrong to nominate as justice minister a lawmaker Kim Seung-won who served as cohead of a lawmakers’ group seeking the withdrawal of indictments involving Lee himself.

A Cabinet reshuffle should signal a change in government by replacing public officials. The nominees should tell us what will change. If predecessors are held responsible, replacements should signal policy improvements.

Here, they do not. Will economic policy change? Defense policy? In real estate, stocks, artificial intelligence or other areas, there is little sign of a new direction. Lee seems to have reshuffled his Cabinet not to change, but to avoid changing.

Even without policy change, more nominees inspiring trust or moral integrity would have been welcome. That, too, was lacking. Why can better people not be found? The appointments are disconcerting because they suggest public office can be treated as private property and handed out at will.

This reshuffle shows where Lee’s determination lies. He has no intention of changing. It can be read as a signal that he will abandon neither efforts to cancel his trials nor his push for constitutional revision. We should prepare. Lee will do his utmost not for us, but for himself. We must now look after our own fate.

Next year marks the 40th anniversary of Korea’s democratization. Rather than pride, the milestone invites reflection on how democracy deteriorated. There is no alternative political party and no trustworthy social movement. Are we left with no way to put power to good use, only the choice of fighting it?