Which party would you choose?

The moment of judgment is less than two months away.

Lee Sang-ryeolThe author is a senior editorial writer of the JoongAng Ilbo.

Newly released documentary “The Birth of Korea” poses a serious question to our society: What would you do if you were to establish a country and protect it afterwards? The film delving into our first president Syngman Rhee’s tumultuous journey to the founding of Korea in 1948 clearly shows that the South Korea-U.S. alliance, mandatory primary education and land reform set the very foundation for today’s Korea. You cannot deny that. Thanks to his desperate diplomacy and resolute reform, the world’s poorest and weakest country was able to become an ally of the superpower, have competent human resources, and set the basis for national harmony and economic growth. After seven decades, North Korea has turned into the poorest country on Earth, but South Korea boasts the 10th largest economy in the world. That was possible thanks to the founding president’s adoption of free democracy and market economy.

Those who criticize the founding father talk about his dictatorship. Anyone would find fault with his long tyranny. But his demerits are certainly outweighed by his merits.

Korea’s founding president Syngman Rhee is welcomed by U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower at the White House on his state visit to the United States, Jul. 26, 1954. [PRESIDENTIAL ARCHIVES]

The internal and external conditions of Korea quite resemble those of seven decades ago. North Korea, Russia and China are getting closer to one another just like those days. Their close connections back then forced North Korea’s founding father Kim Il Sung to make the critical mistake of invading South Korea. Even today, China and Russia’s protection of North Korea effectively neutralizes international sanctions on the recalcitrant state. Under their patronage, North Korea is accelerating the sophistication of nuclear weapons and missiles without any constraints.

Politics is also extremely divided just like 70 years ago. The terrorist attacks on political heavyweights have revived.

Under such circumstances, political parties are busy ferociously attacking one another. The majority Democratic Party (DP) urges voters to punish the conservative Yoon Suk Yeol administration while the governing People Power Party (PPP) asks them to penalize the opposition for repeatedly abusing its majority in the National Assembly. The DP wants voters to hold the government accountable for the tougher livelihoods of the people, worsened economy, unilateral governance and a lack of communication skills, as various polls show. To make matters worse, the suspicion over the first lady’s mysterious reception of a luxury handbag from an outsider has not subsided yet.

The DP is no different. Voters will deliver their final verdict on the majority party’s ceaseless railroading of highly controversial bills, including one aimed at mercilessly punishing employers for industrial accidents at worksites. That’s not all. The fate of DP leader Lee Jae-myung will be determined in the parliamentary elections on April 10 over his methodical scheme to privatize the party, as seen in his arbitrary nominations of candidates loyal to him after eliminating lawmakers not friendly to him.

Still, there is one issue that carries great significance in the election: Who and which party will serve better for free democracy and market economy? In this respect, the DP leader’s language and perception of North Korea sound loud alarms. In a meeting of the party in January, he said, “North Korean leader Kim Jong-un must stop his missile provocations immediately,” followed by extremely unfathomable remarks. He said, “[The North Korean leader] must do his best in order not to dishonor all the efforts by Kim Jong-il and Kim Il Sung of our North Korea.” A more suspicious comment appeared in his New Year’s press conference. Warning about the crisis of war, he said, “The Korean War did not break out all of a sudden. We must not forget that the war represents an accumulation of small and large military clashes along the 38th Parallel between South and North Korea.”

We wonder what effort of the Kim dynasty he really wanted to appreciate, even though Kim Il Sung waged the brutal war against South Korea in 1950 and his son Kim Jong-il was bent on making one military provocation after another. If a leader defines the Korean War just like that, it is not only a critical distortion of history but also an exoneration of the Kim clan from their culpability for the war. Last July, the DP leader also said, “No matter how dirty peace is, it is still better than war.” Would dirty peace really be better than war? Such a perception well explains why the Justice Party, a left-wing and pro-North splinter party, joined hands with the DP to be a part of its satellite parties ahead of the legislative election. The Justice Party persistently demands the dismantlement of unequal South Korea-U.S. relations and the suspension of their regular joint drills. Members of the radical leftist party may soon become our representatives in the legislature. Could it be really regarded as a succession of former president Kim Dae-jung, who respected the South-U.S. alliance, and former president Roh Moo-hyun, who agreed to the Korea-U.S. free trade agreement despite strong opposition from his supporters?

The moment of judgment is less than two months away. Despite their innately different identities, both parties will certainly want to safeguard the country from the North’s aggression and consolidate its prosperity. That could be a conclusion the documentary film hopes to draw from the audience, couldn’t it?