[Political Fandom]⑨ Park Sang-hoon "Overcoming Fandom Requires Diverse Voices"

Interview with Park Sang-hoon, Former Research Fellow at the National Assembly Future Institute
"Emphasizing the Restoration of Political Function and Pluralism"

Editor's NoteIn Korean politics, 'fandom' has become an indispensable presence. There is even talk that fandom dominates politics. The Democratic Party actively utilizes fandom as a political asset, following former President Moon Jae-in and former leader Lee Jae-myung. Newly appointed People Power Party leader Han Dong-hoon also secured party leadership centered around fandom. However, fandom is also criticized for exhibiting extreme behavior that causes political polarization and expands conflicts. We have diagnosed and analyzed the reality and reasons behind fandom politics and examined the possibilities for change. ① "Han Dong-hoon is a tool" "Lee Jae-myung is qualified" ② Activities expanding beyond online and offline to YouTube and media ③ Buying books to raise lawyer fees and relay support on SNS ④ The numerous 'Jaemyung's Village' vs. the high view count 'Withhooni' ⑤ Supporters worried about 'fandom fear' ⑥ Politicians suffering from fandom ⑦ Political YouTube channels earning billions ⑧ Nosamo, different from today's fandom ⑨ Park Sang-hoon "Diverse voices are needed to overcome fandom"

"In a society where hatred and jeering become identity, the values we all need?such as community, solidarity, and empathy?cannot grow. When the language that calls out groups is so divisive, in other words, when hatred acts as a force that grants each other identity, what remains is a socially contagious disease of hostility, hatred, and violence."

Park Sang-hoon, former research fellow at the National Assembly Future Institute and author of ‘Hating Democracy’, has warned about the dangers of fandom politics. According to him, Korean fandom politics shows a unique characteristic where middle-class college graduates exhibit strong obsession with specific individuals in major political parties. They harbor resentment toward established politics and strong hatred even within parties, viewing politics in terms of good and evil, thus avoiding seeking coexistence within the political community. Especially under the value of direct democracy, Park has expressed strong concern about the current trend where fandom politics not only serves as a major driving force but also aims to become the center of politics.

As a way to overcome fandom politics, he pointed to the restoration of pluralism.

Political scientist Dr. Park Sang-hoon is giving an interview to Asia Economy at the National Assembly on the 27th. Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

Fandom politics is openly discussed in the political sphere. The 'subak' controversy and violence at party conventions show the spread of hate politics in our society. Where does this hatred originate?

It can be found in human nature. Human nature has many elements; when politics is good, positive traits appear rather than hatred, but when it is not, hatred is easily created. Just as people tend to speak ill behind others' backs, if politics exploits the deeply rooted aspects of human nature, hatred grows; if politics is good, hatred decreases.

You mentioned the responsibility of former Presidents Park Geun-hye and Moon Jae-in in relation to fandom politics. Why?

Change is not caused by a single factor but by the convergence of multiple elements. To discuss responsibility for fandom politics, the causes should be seen as stemming from the times of former Presidents Park Geun-hye and Moon Jae-in. It is against the separation of powers or checks and balances for a president, as the head of administration, to exert influence over the ruling party's candidate selection. Previous presidents restrained themselves from trying to dominate the legislature or parties after taking office, but Park Geun-hye crossed the line. Moon Jae-in tried to justify what the president wanted to do by arguing that citizens desired it. Such logic was decisive.

There is growing support for party member sovereignty, such as expanding party member participation, in the Democratic Party and others.

The movement where those in power mobilize direct democracy is not only dangerous but also destroys parliamentary and party politics. No matter how much of a president one is, to exercise administrative power and spend money, one must go through legislative and budgetary reviews by the parliament. Mobilizing citizens directly weakens these parliamentary functions. During the Moon Jae-in administration, demands to dissolve parties surged but nothing substantial happened. The highest ruler made the most futile promises to citizens. Citizens freely expressed anger, and while the president may have enjoyed benefits like a benevolent monarch, politics became completely divided. Even now, those in power talking about direct democracy relate to a desire to discard the checks and balances emphasized in pluralism, such as parliament, parties, civil society, and the media. We must uphold responsible politics as a norm. If one says they will listen directly to the people, inevitably only totalitarianism remains.

Why are you critical of the expansion of direct democracy?

Even if direct democracy is implemented, only one president must be elected. You cannot increase the number of lawmakers to 40 million. Those who make laws and run the government?the so-called politicians?are a minority selected from the citizenry. Governance is, in that sense, done by a minority. The idea that the majority can replace the minority in handling these issues is fundamentally an illusion. If illusions are mobilized, what actually happens is not equal expression of citizens' will but the minority becoming winners. That minority is usually ambitious individuals who want power under the name of direct democracy or popular sovereignty.

Suddenly talking about citizens or party members directly handling political issues is ultimately justifying the political logic of ambitious individuals. Modern representative democracy is the highest form of direct democracy. There is no better democracy in human history. Compared to ancient Athenian democracy, where only a minority participated, humanity has achieved tremendous sacrifice and progress. The argument that modern democracy should be supplemented by direct democracy is inconsistent. We should understand the democracy we have as it is and strive to make it slightly better.

Politicians who lead with hatred are becoming influential in Korean society.

This is absolutely not a good thing. However, we cannot place all responsibility on them. Politicians, intellectuals, and the media who fail to courageously raise issues despite problems are also at fault.

Do you think the fandom phenomenon varies depending on the political leader's behavior?

Yes. The political realm is greatly influenced by the individual roles of politicians. This is called leadership. In the judiciary or executive branch, individual personalities interfering too much would contradict bureaucratic or judicial functions, but in politics, a politician's persona has a significant impact. Leader Lee Jae-myung intentionally gathered his current supporters because he believes that this method (mobilizing a strong base) can bring him closer to power.

How do you evaluate the fandom of People Power Party leader Han Dong-hoon?

Broadly speaking, emphasizing the liquidation of the activist faction or discussing issues related to former leader Lee Jae-myung are types of fandom politics. The fandom revealed in Withhooni seems less intense compared to the 'Gaeddal' who say 'Let's break the subak,' but the mechanisms and characteristics are similar.

There are also criticisms that social networking services (SNS) fuel fandom politics.

It is the fault of the Democratic Party and the progressive camp that those with even greater danger than the so-called 'giregi' (derogatory term for biased journalists) have been empowered with money, law, and followers to surpass the power of the media. Where there is power, democracy's most basic principle is to impose responsibility. However, power is exercised without any means of checks. Those who can freely invite influential politicians, intellectuals, experts, and artists to their broadcasts are effectively monarchs. Monarchs who are unaccountable can be called heads of underground governments. They conduct opinion polls, influence candidate selection, and make politicians bow, yet politicians scramble to appear on their shows. This is a big problem. When power and benefits are combined with adulation, it becomes regarded as good, and no one criticizes it. In a broad sense, a few people are practicing a form of quasi-theocracy.

If politics functions properly, can the problems of fandom politics be overcome?

As long as we affirm democracy, those legitimately entrusted with sovereignty must be encouraged to have courage. If we keep jeering, mocking politics from outside, and simply riding the anti-politics wave while pretending to be clean, it leads us all into hypocrisy. We must distinguish what they should and should not do and hope they do not lose the courage to boldly demand change if needed. The media, broadcasters, intellectuals, and even religion are divided and cannot escape political influence. Orderly change is the best path.

Political scientist Dr. Park Sang-hoon is giving an interview to Asia Economy at the National Assembly on the 27th. Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

What do you think about political change through electoral systems or constitutional amendments?

Believing that society will completely change according to a set system is called authoritarian institutionalism. When someone becomes the Speaker of the National Assembly, they talk about constitutional amendments out of habit, and politicians always talk about institutional reform as if it is the essence of political reform, but I do not believe that. There must be a growing consensus on why pluralistic political change is necessary, and without that, no matter what system is introduced, people will only seek the best means for their own interests. Politics exists because humans are imperfect. It was created to escape the state of nature and pursue the public good through institutions. Because it aims for the public good, democracy was made to respect diverse interests and different passions. Democracy is about recognizing pluralistic preferences and having political expression structures that fit that pluralistic preference structure. Fandom suppresses pluralistic preferences and, even within the same party, fails to accept differing opinions, revealing hostility, hatred, and jealousy. The alternative is not only to point out that fandom is bad but fundamentally to allow diverse voices to emerge in our society.