The past seven heads of state have all been embroiled in corruption scandals 
Seoul, Apr.7.– It is a busy time for anyone interested in the fight against corruption in South Korea. In mid-March a court in Seoul began hearing the case of three former spy chiefs who stand accused of funnelling 4bn won ($3.8m) from the National Intelligence Service to the office of the former president, Park Geun-hye, who was impeached a year ago. A week later prosecutors arrested Lee Myung-bak, another former president, over allegations that he had collected more than $10m in bribes while in office and had hidden his ownership of a profitable auto-parts maker. And on April 6th Ms Park is expected to be sentenced to many years in jail for taking bribes and abusing her power. (Prosecutors recommended in February that she get a 30-year sentence.)
All four of South Korea’s living ex-presidents have now either been convicted of corruption offences, or are in jail being tried or investigated for such crimes. In addition to Ms Park and Mr Lee, Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo, former generals who held office in the 1980s and 1990s, were found guilty under their civilian successor, Kim Young-sam, of extracting bribes from South Korea’s big industrial conglomerates, the chaebol. And three deceased presidents were also touched by corruption scandals.
Both Mr Kim and his successor, Kim Dae-jung, entered office pledging to eradicate corruption, but both saw their sons convicted of influence-peddling during their time in office. Roh Moo-hyun, who succeeded the second Mr Kim, committed suicide a year after leaving office. He had been accused of receiving bribes, funnelled through his wife and other relatives, from a wealthy shoemaker.
In short, corruption has long been a feature rather than a bug in South Korean politics. “Asking for money from chaebol executives in return for political favours was considered quite normal until very recently,” says Kang Won-taek of Seoul National University. He believes the country’s authoritarian past is to blame. The absence of democratic checks and balances encouraged politicians to identify the state’s interests with their own, he argues ...
[ Full text ]