No doubt 'the trial of the century'

By Arief Budiman

SALATIGA, Central Java (JP): The trial of the two former South Korean presidents, Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo, has been rightly named as "the trial of the century." There are several reasons to justify this.

First, never in the history of any country in the world, have two former heads of state been put on trial at the same time. In some countries, former leaders were put on trial after new regimes came to power. However, in these countries, only one leader, usually the one who was replaced, was taken to court - like Ali Bhutto in Pakistan, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, and some others in Africa and South America.

Second, in other countries, new regimes have usually come to power after a sort of coup d'etat had been launched, not after a peaceful general election. In South Korea, both Chun and Roh were replaced through general elections. Thus, the political system in this country has gone, more or less, back to democracy. These two former presidents were taken to court following due process of law, not by a new ruler just assuming power by (usually military) force and utilizing a "revolutionary" law. This makes the South Korean case very unique and unprecedented in human history.

The sentence of the court has also been dramatic. Chun was sentenced to death by hanging and Roh got 22.5 years in prison. Chun was proven guilty of involvement in the 1979 coup d'etat that took the life of the then president Gen. Park Chung-hee. He was also found guilty in the massacre of more than 200 students in Kwangju in 1980, and in taking bribes of US$279 million while in power. Roh was found guilty as Chun's assistant in the 1979 coup and the 1980 student massacre, and also of taking bribes of $349 million when he was president. We have yet to see whether these sentences would be carried out.

There has been some controversy about these two sentences. Many South Koreans now seem to welcome these sentences,especially those parents, who lost their children in the Kwangju massacre. It was reported that many people cheered the news of the sentences.

However, other people think the sentences are too severe. At any rate, they argue, both Chun and Roh have been successful in bringing about economic development in the country. Also, they have succeeded in transforming peacefully the political system, from an authoritarian one to a democratic one. The present economic prosperity and stable political system have to be accredited to these two former leaders. Thus, it is only fair that these good things are also recognized and taken into consideration in determining the sentences.

The Indonesian daily Kompas in its Aug. 28 editorial also raised this issue, invoking the Eastern values. For the Eastern people, according to Kompas, good deeds are always remembered. We are not too pragmatic and business-like in dealing with problems. We always come back to our family traditions in which old people and those who have done good, even if they did make mistakes, will still be respected. Have the South Koreans forgotten their Eastern tradition and values? Kompas asked.

Another interesting point to be discussed is the impact of this trial on the present leaders of the developing world who rule under an authoritarian political system.

The message of the South Korean trial is loud and clear: sooner or later, every authoritarian leader has to be responsible for the evil deeds he or she has committed in the past, while in power. These evil deeds are especially related to political atrocities against innocent citizens, and/or corruption to amass personal wealth.

It does not matter much whether these leaders have successfully brought more economic prosperity to their countries: it will make the situation worse if on top of political atrocities and corruption, the country's economy under the corrupt leader is also in disarray.

Some African and Latin American countries have proved this. In Asia, Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines was put on trial for massive corruption, while some Cambodian leaders, when the time comes, I believe, would be put on trial for their atrocities against their own people.

In contrast with all this stands Singapore. The former premier Lee Kuan Yew was also an authoritarian leader. But, during his tenure, he did not commit atrocities that cost lives. Moreover, he was known to be a clean leader, relatively free from corruption of any kind. Thus, he is still popular and influential after the transfer of state power to his successor.

From the above, we can see that what matters, is not the authoritarian way of governing, but political atrocities that result in loss of lives, and corruption that enriches corrupt leaders. Lee was guilty of neither, so Singapore is still strong in maintaining its economic development and political stability after the change of guard.

Unfortunately, there are many leaders of developing countries who still rule under an authoritarian system, and commit political atrocity or are financially corrupt or both. It is doubtful whether these leaders would learn from the Philippine, South Korean or Singaporean experience. The fact that they are still continuing these unpopular practices prove that they are not affected by what has happened in other countries.

In the meanwhile, some prominent social scientists have predicted that democracy will come to many more nations in the world. Even the so-called socialist countries in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, have become more democratic. Samuel Huntington, for instance, in his recent book called The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (1991) says that this third wave of democratization has started since 1974. The world is becoming more democratic, and this phenomenon proves Hegel's theory that democracy will be the future political system of all human societies in the world.

Having witnessed this forceful world historical process that is still going on, it is time the wise leaders in the developing world became aware of this trend and went along with this historical wave. It is time for them to start democratizing their political system and balancing their unpopular deeds of the past with the good ones now. The Javanese have a good term for this, Ojo Dumeh, meaning, "do not take advantage while you are still in power". Only when they become aware of this world historical trend and correct their behavior accordingly, before it is too late, can they still be saved from a fate like that of the former presidents of the Philippines and South Korea.

However, it is also a fact that people don't learn from history, and history will repeat itself. It seems that there will always be another Marcos, another Chun and another Roh.

The writer is a researcher and a sociologist living in Salatiga.