On Dec. 19, Korean voters will choose one from among the three major candidates ― Park Geun-hye, Moon Jae-in and Ahn Cheol-soo (by the traditional media order). There can be an eventual two-way competition supposing either Moon or Ahn making a last-minute exit, and the field looks extremely hazy at this moment with nearly even possibilities of Park-Moon, Park-Ahn and Park-Moon-Ahn ballots. 

The campaign headquarters of the three are releasing many known and unknown names mostly from academia as strategists who must be working on platforms to best appeal voters. Less than three months to go to the sixth presidential election since the 1987 rewriting of the Constitution to end military dictatorships, campaigning is rather restrained without direct mutual criticisms.

Koreans are lucky that, at a time when their representative democracy is about to take root a quarter century after the departure of uniformed men who had ruled the country for most of the post-war years, they are watching a peaceful, low-decibel electioneering by candidates all seemingly of reasonable minds and soft voices. I am afraid we will have least provocative TV debates in election history.

Park Geun-hye has apologized for her father’s “defiling of the democratic constitutional value” during his authoritarian governing of the republic, which involved harsh repression of dissidents and political opposition. The apology itself is meaningless because she was not a part of the deeds she now regrets on her father’s behalf. Yet, she showed certain flexibility to shift from her initial “leave-it-up-to-history” attitude to the humble “I am sorry” statement in a quick response to questions about her political conscience.

Moon Jae-in will have to display his old pictures in the Army airborne special forces uniform before those who doubt his will to power and career records to demonstrate it. Yet, he proved his patience and resilience through the disorderly primary process in his Democratic United Party. His autobiography portrays his tough struggle as a human rights activist in close comradeship with the late President Roh Moo-hyun, but the book depicts an alter ego of Roh and his permanent chief of staff with unproven leadership of his own.

Ahn Cheol-soo is a truly unique character. The “Gandhi syndrome” he fomented about himself over the past few years among his young admirers and people disenchanted with ugly partisan politics has been quickly dissipated with the disclosure of various episodes that revealed his moral conducts not much above average Koreans’. But his moderate idealism exuding from a cherubic face beckons many Korean voters to an unknown world where existing institutions ― parties, politicians and chaebeol ― have to concede their vested interests.

Ballots were close in previous presidential elections except for the last one in 2007. We are entering a close fight in December although one can expect some unexpected fluctuations due to the exposure of skeletons from any candidate’s deep closet. With the general features of platforms more or less emulating each other’s ― largely converging on economic democracy, welfare and greater flexibility on North Korea ― it will most likely be a contest of personal integrity.

In 2002, Korean electorate chose Roh Moo-hyun, an unconventional politician but no doubt an honest man. His dash to the left with unconcealed disdain on the whole upper stratum of society, however, made people uncomfortable, and in 2007, many swung to Lee Myung-bak on the right whose pragmatist brand appealed to voters who were sick of ideological polarization under Roh. After five years of the Lee presidency, people again want an ethical catharsis of national leadership. Which of the three best fits this criterion?

It may sound a bit too grand but the Republic of Korea is about to make a new start after a quarter century of democratic experiments. In order to put Campaign 2012 into historical perspective, I am inclined to recall the first election under the 1987 Constitution which pitted retired general Roh Tae-woo, representing conservative interests of the military, big business and other privileged groups, against the “three Kims” ― Kim Young-sam, Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-pil.

The miraculously successful strategy of Roh and his civilian helpers was to prevent an opposition alliance between “YS” and “DJ” by all means, inducing both to believe that they could win in the three-way competition (disregarding “JP”) independently. Kim Young-sam and Kim Dae-jung underestimated Gen. Roh in the election right after pro-democracy reforms and overestimated themselves to go all the way to the finish line. Roh Tae-woo won and the two Kims succeeded him one after the other in 1992 and 1997 elections.

Already, some “election specialists” who allegedly helped parties and candidates with winning strategies in the past, are heard dispensing their magic formulae for triumph in 2012. This time, debates are focused on who between Moon and Ahn will be easier for Park to beat supposing an opposition coalition, which one of the two is more likely to give up, and whether a DUP endorsement of Ahn will really be a boon to him.

It will be just nave to assume that Park’s victory will be a foregone conclusion in a three-way contest and that an opposition alliance will guarantee victory to whoever is chosen for its single candidacy. After 25 years, we have on the slate a woman candidate, a medical doctor cum software businessman and a former chief aide to a former president who committed suicide. The 1987 election may have left some lessons but they do not necessarily apply to 2012.

Now analysts question how anxiously Ahn Cheol-soo would pursue an alliance with opposition parties while he suspects it might scare moderate voters away from him on a massive scale. Ahn has established a broad constituency in the middle ground of Korean political spectrum, consisting mainly of people who detest all names of parties and their modus operandi. They will be checked only by apprehension that Ahn’s inexperience in real politics and state administration may require an extended learning period if he gets elected. He will have to confront an uncooperative and even hostile Assembly for more than half of his term.

But Ahn’s supporters, with religious fervor, believe that these shortcomings can be overcome by the standard bearer’s enthusiasm toward national renewal. Ahn and his hurriedly assembled campaigners should avoid any more exposure of embarrassing stains on his career and prove that he can swim “as well in the ocean as in a swimming pool.” Parties, on the other hand, should realize that integrity on the individual and organizational levels is the best platform in the politics of 2012 and thereafter, and to win, their candidates should prove to be the finest incarnation of that quality. 

By Kim Myong-sik

Kim Myong-sik is a former editorial writer of The Korea Herald. ― Ed.