In the June 3 nationwide local elections, voters chose a delicate balance by handing victory to neither the ruling nor opposition party. This is read as a warning message to the political establishment to break away from ideological competition and extreme partisan strife, to reform their parties and present a vision for the future. In a June 29 interview with The Seoul Economic Daily, Kim Ho-ki, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Yonsei University, said, "In the age of artificial intelligence (AI), innovation competition is unfolding on a global scale," adding, "Whether progressive or conservative, there is a need to pursue bold post-ideological policies and present a 'Future Vision 3.0.'" His point is that while the vast majority of citizens harbor great fear of an uncertain future amid the scientific and technological revolution, Korea's political establishment remains mired in the 20th-century dichotomy of ideology. Regarding Korea's future vision, he stressed, "We must move beyond industrialization and democratization toward an innovating leading nation," adding, "What is required is the 'democratizing of democracy' based on pluralism and inclusive political society." To the conservative camp, he advised that it must give concrete form to policies capable of restoring conservatism's original core values, such as growth, integration and community. Professor Kim, who has researched the spirit of the times, is a centrist-progressive scholar who led the design of national visions in successive progressive governments.
- Even after the December 3 martial law incident, the Democratic Party did not score a landslide in the local elections.
△ Looking at the Democratic Party's history, the Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun governments pursued a Korean-style "Third Way" of centrist reform. Since 2010, the Democratic Party has adopted economic democratization, a welfare state and peace on the Korean Peninsula as its new national vision. If the traditional "anti-dictatorship struggle theory" was "Progressivism 1.0," this is worth calling "Progressivism 2.0." In this process, the Democratic Party made its identity as a progressive force even clearer. A new evolution of "Progressivism 2.0" in line with the changing times is required, but in this local election the Democratic Party failed to present a new national vision. Also, some in the 2030 generation see the so-called "86 generation," the core of the progressive forces, as a vested-interest group.
- Do you think the 2030 generation has turned conservative?
△ It is a natural current of history for the next generation to criticize the preceding one. The democratization generation, too, grew up by criticizing the preceding industrialization generation. Men in their 20s have turned conservative, but it cannot be said that the entire 2030 generation has turned conservative. Even in the Busan and Daegu mayoral elections, the 2030 generation as a whole gave more votes to Democratic Party candidates. The problem is that the 2030 generation is highly likely to be less affluent than their parents' generation. To reduce generational conflict, the older generation needs to pursue more forward-looking policies on the employment, housing and welfare of the younger generation, and make efforts to understand their inner world more deeply.
- The current ruling power criticizes meritocracy, but the 2030 generation thinks it is fair to be rewarded in proportion to one's ability.
△ In his 1996 book "Left and Right," Italian political scientist Norberto Bobbio argued that both the left and the right cherish the value of freedom. Instead, he distinguished the left and right by their attitudes toward social equality. The right approaches it from the perspective of "equality of opportunity," while the left also emphasizes "equality of outcome." The core of the issue lies in how far one will accept social inequality stemming from differences in individual ability. A minimum social consensus on fairness is required.
- Along with social consensus, what kind of policies are needed?
△ Unless the class ladder is rebuilt, inequality will be further entrenched. An institutional prescription to counter the tendency toward hereditary privilege is required. We must grant more educational opportunities to the socially disadvantaged, devise forward-looking tax policies on income, assets and inheritance, and establish a system of second chances for those who have suffered setbacks.
- What must be done for Korea's economy and democracy to mature one step further?
△ The first is an "innovating leading nation." Building on the achievements of an industrial nation and a democratic nation, we must give concrete form to a "K-Initiative national strategy" that swiftly pursues innovation-driven growth. We must implement a road map for new growth industries such as AI, bio and energy, and an action plan for manufacturing innovation in semiconductors, automobiles and shipbuilding. To this end, we must comprehensively pursue six major structural reforms — in regulation, finance, the public sector, pensions, education and labor. Structural reform creates the conditions for new growth. Without new growth, there is no new distribution. The second is the "democratizing of democracy."
- Please explain the "democratizing of democracy."
△ It is a concept presented by British sociologist Anthony Giddens, known for the "Third Way." Democracy is a value and an institution that demands ceaseless self-innovation. The reason democracy faces a crisis today lies, above all, in the 21st-century populism that loathes and demonizes the other side. Populism splits society into "two nations" and exhausts the resources for social integration. To prevent this, we must further democratize democratic institutions and culture. Amending the 1987 Constitution as institutional reform, and building a pluralistic public sphere and democratic civic education as cultural innovation, are tasks that can no longer be postponed.
- What is the implication for the progressive camp?
△ In the case of the Lee Jae-myung government, it is partially revising the economic democratization theory and welfare state theory of "Progressivism 2.0" through a new growth theory and a basic society theory. I believe the theory of an innovating leading nation, the theory of democratizing democracy, and a basic society theory that responds to the AI era can become the future vision of centrist-progressive forces. A clear future vision can provide a starting point for escaping the current fear and sense of powerlessness.
- What is the cause of the total crisis facing Korea's conservative forces?
△ They have failed to properly embody conservative values such as a new growth strategy, high-quality social integration, and communal bonds that overcome "every man for himself." At the core of "Park Chung-hee-ism" was the governing logic that democracy could be suspended for the goal of economic growth. Growth-first thinking appeared as the "market conservatism" of the Lee Myung-bak government, and anti-communist authoritarianism as the "security conservatism" of the Park Geun-hye government. Seoul National University Professor Park Se-il put forward a decent "Conservatism 2.0" discourse of advancement, but it was not realized. "Conservatism 3.0" is required. Its direction will lie in strengthening the security capabilities to cope with the new Cold War order and the economic capabilities to lead the scientific and technological revolution, while at the same time pursuing a warm social integration that overcomes the ills of a competitive society.
- Is there a progressive agenda that conservatives should embrace to expand their base?
△ It is worth paying attention to former British Prime Minister David Cameron's "compassionate capitalism" or "progressive conservatism." It was a conservative line that went beyond the limitless competition of neoliberalism to emphasize resolving polarization, guaranteeing equal opportunity, and pursuing the happiness of all members. The aim was to breathe warmth into cold capitalism. I hope both conservatives and progressives can properly take their places and engage in a proper competition over the future.
- What should be the top priority for the second year of the Lee Jae-myung government?
△ First, again, "it's the economy." The innovation and sustainability of growth for "meoksanism" (livelihood) and "jalsanism" (prosperity) must be the top state goal. Second, "K-shaped polarization" must be eased. We cannot leave as they are the industrial gaps between semiconductors and non-semiconductors, the production gaps between regions, and the income gaps between classes. Third, we must actively respond to the AI transformation (AX) and the green transformation (GX). Fourth, in the face of changes in the international order, we must strengthen national-interest-first pragmatic diplomacy.
- There are also criticisms that structural reform to raise the potential growth rate is slow.
△ I believe the core task of the second year in power lies in pushing structural reform beyond recovery. Core structural reforms in labor, education and regulation take at least two years from design through legislation, implementation and settlement. If we do not begin now, it may be difficult to produce visible results within the term. Structural reform is a process of exchanging present pain for future benefit. To endure the pain of transition, a kind of "normative narrative" is needed that can draw out the consent and participation of the majority of citizens.
- There are several things to improve, but what is the strength of our society?
△ I think it lies in the "resilience" that wisely overcomes crises. Industrialization and
