Do you have any Korean president you respect? It might not be a simple question for Koreans to answer. There are many criticisms of policies or presidents’ moral issues in Korea. However, it is difficult to find support for them about their achievements in newspapers or public broadcastings. Koreans tend to devalue their presidents.

There are several factors to this tendency. There are too many criticisms without consideration of a concrete state. The estimation is negative because developed nations are the standard for evaluation. When Roh Moo-hyun, the former president, carried out public welfare policy in 2003, the policy ran into big opposition. The point of the policy was to increase the number of public-sector workers and to enlarge the welfare budget. The reason for the resistance was that advanced countries’ policies are to decreasing of the number of government workers. However, the ratio of the number of official employees to the total population in Korea was the lowest level among the OECD countries. According to the materials for statistics of Korea Labor Institute, Japan is at 3.5%, the U.S. is at 7.5% and Korea is at 1.9% as the lowest.

After the change of presidencies, the present leadership can be opposed to the former administration’s policies blindly. ‘The lost decade’ of Lee Myung-bak is an example. The existing government carried out their policies in an opposite way of the former government. There could be a process of former government’s project or any good policies. Naturally, the stand they took interferes with taking over the good things from the former administration.

A Cabinet position in Korea is an appointive office, and the Chief Executive (President) has the appointive power. Therefore, the Cabinet post is not a stable position. In case of changing the way of policy, the post is replaced at the same time. The average term of ministers in Korea, do not reach a year. It means there are few policies maintained for a long term with consistency. In addition, a desire to make a difference that is in contrast to the former government and to achieve huge plans or something is an obstruction to the prosperity of Korea.

In case of the Korean War or the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis in Korea situation, the livelihood of the common people gets precarious. When people undergo a national trial, the first one they can blame is the president. Therefore, the grim realities of life can make the image of the President seem very bad.

Korea is comparatively one of the most successful countries in many ways. There was a catchphrase ‘Miracle on the Han River’. It represents the rapid growth of Korea between the Korean War (1950-1954) until the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997, when there was a huge economic crisis in Korea with other nations in South-East Asia. However, Korea escaped this crisis within three years and eight months to become the first country among others, and made special efforts of change at all levels of society. Today, the automotive, the steel industry and the shipyard business are at their highest levels in the world. Information Technology and a super-highway information network are needless to mention. However, Korean people are so stingy with praise. The stinginess of admirable accomplishments and praise for our past leaders and ancestors are worrisome.

One of the problems with making wrong evaluations is that several Presidents did not deserve such unfavorable evaluations. In the case of former President Kim Young-sam, he has a strong image of failure because of the Foreign Exchange Crisis during the end of his term in office. However, he went far in his term towards exposing Korea’s military culture. He made broke-up personal military groups like ‘Hanahoe (Group of one)’ and then eliminated a deep-rooted military culture in Korea in a fairly short period, but this fact is not talked about very much because of his image.

Former President Roh Moo-hyun also estimated badly during his tenure of office. Even there was a phrase on everybody’s fingers on the internet. “It’s all Roh Moo-hyun’s fault”. However, his policies in the reform government of dispersing power to local governments were very successful. In his case, the problems came from external factors like his impropriety in speeches and position of political interests were a matter of concern.

The most interesting case is former President Park Chung-hee. His evaluation as president is divided into extreme degrees. One is from the view of development of democracy; the other view is from the point of economic growth. Until now, President Park was the target of criticism because of extreme measures he took that violated human rights.  However, he is now viewed as the President who deserves a better evaluation due to the rapid growth of the Korean economy. The two viewpoints have biased standards, so we need to consider all the factors to have an objective and overall estimation for him.

The basis of evaluation is not multi-sided but fragmented, so it is easy to focus only on errors. Yet to judge the whole by a part is not the right way to estimate presidents. The valuation as if to mock oneself can affect badly from the domestic and international viewpoints of the country.

From a domestic point of view, it interferes with the ability of leaders to fix problems of a former administration. To stop repeating the same mistake and to carry out better policies than the predecessor, the attitude of present presidents should be changed. The process of succession and productive comments is needed for the future of Korea. Yet there is no such effort to benchmark a former president’s practical politics.

Using the wrong yardstick is no simple matter. It makes an objective view impossible when considering the indications of the age and the results of Presidents impossible. To make a synthetic judgment on a President, we not only need some various standards but also need to consider the phases of the time. If not, the self-scorned estimation on a President is extended to the evaluation on a nation’s history. In the end, it is hare for people to be proud of their country.

The negative domestic valuation affects the evaluation of the international point of view for a country. An evaluation without praise has a bad influence on the development of Korea and leadership of the Chief Executive.

The difference of evaluation is clear for Presidents between Korea and other countries. ‘The lost decade’ of government is a term made by two former presidents, Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun. They are proud of the exchanges between South and North Korea and the stabilization policies of the economy as stated by foreign news sources.

In April, Ma Ying-jeou the Generalissimo of Taiwan said he use Korea’s political benchmark as a model for new reforms in his country, and then he turned over the plan because of the approval ratings for President Lee Myung-bak rapidly dropped. However, considering his election pledges, it seems his intend was to benchmark the two presidents of ‘The lost decade’ for their escape of Asian economic crisis in 1997.

There are some cases where a foreign news source catches things we did not praise then re-evaluates them. January 2008, the International Herald Tribune published an article ‘Shuffled off to history, veneration of Ro Moo Hyun will follow’. The article says Mr. Roh would win respect after his retirement in February, but the article did not receive any attention in principal newspapers in Korea. At the time when he retired, his approval rating stayed at the 30% mark.

The reason is a difference of evaluation criteria. The West takes result as a standard of estimation, but an unpopular President cannot get a truthful evaluation irrespective of the quality of his policies.

The tendency is similar here. In the case of Korea, what people want is for their President to be different from other countries. The U.S., for example, the people of America wants their President to be a great leader of the world. Although John F. Kennedy had sex scandals and Ronald Wilson Reagan had the Iran-Contra affair, the people speak highly of them as great leaders.

To evaluate Presidents with proper yardsticks is a very big issue to discuss, but it does not get the proper concern from the people. To praise them, when they deserve it is momentous. It is a matter related to foreign impressions of Korea. In the case of the present President, the evaluation with only criticism can block his policy goals for Korea’s future. Especially the latest example, the evaluation for the present government of President Lee Myung-bak should not be in haste. With a hope for his better conducting the national affairs, we need to be little more relaxed.