[The Editors' Verdict] Call It "Government" Instead of "Regime"

"Let's overthrow the Roh Tae-woo regime that has destroyed people's livelihoods and trampled on democracy." In the summer of 1992, every weekend, the streets of Jongno in Seoul were not filled with cars but with crowds of protesters. These thousands, even tens of thousands, chanted four-beat slogans in unison. The cries to bring down the regime echoed throughout the streets like a refrain.

"Let us never shed tears again at City Hall Square. Let us not fall to water cannons. Hearts that collapsed in despair are now rising again." The scene at the time was as desperate and urgent as the lyrics of singer Jung Tae-chun's song, "The Monsoon of '92, in Jongno."

During the 1980s and 1990s, the so-called era of democracy versus anti-democracy, the streets of downtown, where protesters and police clashed, were nothing short of small battlefields. Protesters wielded Molotov cocktails and steel pipes, while the police responded with tear gas and the Baekgoldan riot squad. It was a time when the acrid smell of tear gas and the red flames engulfed the streets.

At that time, President Roh Tae-woo was the highest authority chosen by the people, but he always carried the label of being the successor to military dictatorship. The reason the protesters referred to the "regime" rather than the "government" was because they saw it as something to be overthrown. In this way, the word "regime" became synonymous with dictatorial power.

In fact, the word "regime" itself is not inherently negative. Its dictionary definition is "the power to form a government and manage a country." There is nothing negative in that meaning. In reality, "regime" is sometimes used to emphasize the substance of a change in power. It may also be used in academic contexts or when referring to its literal meaning.

The problem is that, in public perception?especially in political circles?the word "regime" is far from being value-neutral. Over decades, a negative image has been layered onto the term. When expressing hostility toward the opposing political camp, people used "regime" instead of "government." This was true 30 years ago, and it remains true today.

"The runaway prosecution regime of Yoon Suk-yeol gave birth to the Lee Jae-myung government."

"The Lee Jae-myung regime itself is a regime of personnel disasters."

These are recent expressions used by ruling and opposition party figures to criticize their opponents. The word "regime" has often been used to signal a will to resist politically. When one views the other side as an object to be overthrown or punished, how can dialogue and compromise be expected? Perhaps it is time to set aside the distorted political habit of using "regime" and replace it with "government." Even changing a single word can significantly lower political tensions.

Creating a political environment where expressions like the Lee Jae-myung government, Yoon Suk-yeol government, Moon Jae-in government, and Park Geun-hye government feel more natural than the Lee Jae-myung regime, Yoon Suk-yeol regime, Moon Jae-in regime, and Park Geun-hye regime would in itself be meaningful progress. The soft landing of the term "government" could help restore politics and foster cooperation. Recognizing the other side is the starting point for dialogue and compromise.

In this sense, responsible leaders of major parties should reflect on their own language habits. Are they carelessly using derogatory terms when referring to their political opponents? Using expressions that carry a sinister undertone only undermines the dignity of the speaker. Is it not time to move beyond the barbaric political culture that treats the other side as something to be eliminated?