Stop inciting ideological conflicts, politicians

I strongly believe that if politicians first innovate themselves, it can be the start of genuine social integration for our notoriously conflict-ridden society.

Kim Ho-kiThe author is a professor of sociology at Yonsei University. A survey on ideological conflicts, released last week by the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs, has drawn attention. According to the report titled “Social Integration Survey and Countermeasures,” 58.2 percent of respondents said they have no intention to date or marry someone with a different political affiliation.

There were also notable generational differences: 51.8 percent of young people, 56.6 percent of middle-aged people and 68.6 percent of the elderly showed the same response. In addition, 33 percent said they would not go out for drinks with friends or acquaintances who have different political mindsets, while 71.4 percent said they wouldn’t participate in civic and social organization activities with people of different political thoughts. The results show that ideological conflict has a major impact on our daily lives. Then what about the overall ideological spectrum of our society? According to the “2023 Social Integration Survey,” released in March by the Korea Institute of Public Administration, 29.9 percent of the participants were conservatives, while 46.7 percent were centrists and 23.4 percent liberals. This indicates that the centrist group’s presence is significant.

The survey also found that a total of 82.9 percent rated the degree of ideological conflict as “severe” — with 36.3 percent saying “somewhat severe” and 46.6 percent saying “very severe.” That shows our ideological conflict is the most serious, compared to conflicts over wealth inequality (76.2 percent), labor management (68.9 percent), generational differences (55.2 percent) and gender issues (42.2 percent). This raises a question. Although nearly a half of the people are centrists, why does the majority of the people feel the ideological conflict is severe?

First, ideological conflict is complex because it is both a conflict of values and a conflict of interests. Ideologies are basically about values, but behind them is a conflict of interests.

The second reason is the influence from the political system. According to data released by the Pew Research Center in 2021, 90 percent of the Korean respondents rated political conflict as being serious — with “serious” at 40 percent and “very serious” at 50 percent. The United States tied for the first place at 90 percent, followed by France with 65 percent and Germany with 56 percent.

The severity of political conflict was rated lower in countries with a cabinet system and higher in countries with a presidential system — such as Korea and the United States. It can be interpreted that the winner-takes-all presidential system has fueled not only political conflict but also ideological conflict.

Third, politicians’ strategy of “splintering” is also noteworthy. This splintering strategy based on mobilizing loyal supporters — rather than a strategy of centrist integration to attract uncertain constituencies — has become the priority in elections since we entered the 21st century. Furthermore, social media has allowed hardcore divisive platforms, which generate significant profits, to flourish. By inciting feelings of hostility and hatred towards rivals, this strategy has fueled not only ideological conflicts but also political polarization.

As we approach the 40th anniversary of democratization, ideological conflicts have spread from factions to individuals, a phenomenon that can be called the normalization of factional thinking. The example cited above — the shocking impact of ideological conflicts on relationships and marriage — is a case in point. It seems natural that ideology and values are considered important. But it is sad to see the reality that conservatives and liberals are intruding on and dominating even the most private areas of our lives.

There are several ways to mitigate ideological conflicts. We should be tolerant of opponents and reflect on ourselves even while criticizing others. If a majority of people refuse to replace our presidential system with the parliamentary system, we must find an effective way to stop our authoritarian presidential system. We must take an objective approach to ideological disputes while civil society demonstrates the spirit of dialogue and compromise beyond hatred and hostilities toward opponents.

More important is the role of political parties and the government. A biased emphasis on social integration in today’s world of fragmentation should not be allowed. That’s why political circles must serve as the “moderators” — not “stimulators” — of our ideological conflicts. I strongly believe that if politicians first innovate themselves, it can be the start of genuine social integration for our notoriously conflict-ridden society.

Translation by the Korea JoongAng Daily staff.