Social consensus bodies do not represent the people

The ruling and opposition parties on Thursday agreed to pass as a package a pension reform bill for civil servants and the proposed setup of a "social organization" tasked with strengthening the public pension system and addressing elderly poverty. About 10 experts who led a government pension reform task force will gather opinions on regulations for the proposed "social organization" tentatively agreed by representatives from the rival parties and deliver them by May 26. Once the package deal is passed by May 27, the National Assembly plans to pass the pension reform bill and the proposed setup of the "social organization" at a main session on the following day.

What the parties have gained in the process of the agreement on the reform of the government employees` pension is that they learned a lesson on a social consensus organization and that a "social organization" in which the subject of reform participates as the actor of reform cannot achieve a proper reform. In retrospect, there was little room for a compromise in a grand compromise organization whether it was for civil servants` pension reform or labor reform. Those with vested interest were preoccupied with protecting their interest under the pretext of a social compromise instead of making concessions.

Even if a "social organization" for public pension is launched, it is expected that there will be controversies over the representativeness of participants, causing concerns that the body could be turned into an arena for political struggles rather than representing the citizens. The parliament and the government should get out of the pitfall of a "social organization". If the legislature, which represents the public and enjoys all kinds of privileges, passes the buck of burdensome issues to a social consensus organization, it would deny its own responsibility. The government should not be obsessed with the cause of "social consensus." How long will it continue to be held hostage by a social organization and avoid its responsibility?

Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said during his recent visit to South Korea that while no one opposes reform when it is in an abstract stage, people with vested interests will increase their resistance when the reform is implemented in concrete ways. He stressed that the government has to draw up its own ways and push ahead with reforms if labor and management fail to reach an agreement. Schroeder, who announced the "Agenda 2010" in 2003, put labor and pensions on a surgery table. Although the unpopular reforms brought an economic revival to a country that was once called a "Sick Man of Europe," it also brought him an election defeat. He teaches us a lesson that the true leadership of politicians is to risk losing power to do what is necessary for their country.

Reform gets a powerful driving force when those with vested interest give up their interest and make concessions. If their attempt to protect their interest is tolerated under the name of a social consensus, reform will go nowhere. While it is necessary to try to listen to the opinions of interest groups and create a consensus, we must remember that the actors of reform are, after all, the government and the legislature. A social organization does not represent the general public. There is no one in such an organization who would protect the interest of the public.