Column Now is the Era of Culture (文話) The Busan-Masan Democratic Uprising, A Mirror Reflecting Today's Democracy

[Now is the Era of Culture (文話)]-12

In October 1979, the streets of Busan and Masan were filled with the voices of citizens protesting against the Yushin dictatorship. As political repression and economic grievances accumulated, compounded by the expulsion of opposition party chairman Kim Young-sam from the National Assembly, citizens' anger erupted into street resistance. University students opened fire first, and ordinary citizens including workers and merchants joined en masse, spreading the uprising into a democracy movement that shook the entire region.

The Busan-Masan Democratic Uprising was a decisive turning point in modern Korean history that accelerated cracks in the Yushin regime. It directly triggered political changes leading to the assassination of President Park Chung-hee on October 26 that year, and became the substantive background for ending the Yushin system. The government declared martial law in Busan and issued curfew orders in the Masan-Changwon areas, launching a forceful crackdown. However, while it could suppress street protests, it could not eliminate the social causes that gave rise to that voice.

Power always mistakenly believes it can suppress citizens' freedoms, but the Busan-Masan uprising clearly etched into our history the extent to which power can be exercised and how citizens' fundamental rights must be protected.

Today, 47 years later, the reason we look back on the Busan-Masan Democratic Uprising is precisely because of this. We must go beyond simple historical commemoration and ask how completely the demands that echoed in the streets 47 years ago are being realized in today's democracy.

Citizens' resistance moved history

The Busan-Masan Democratic Uprising cannot be explained simply as the achievement of a particular party or organized political force. It was an event in which citizens from different circumstances voluntarily broadened their resistance, sharing dissatisfaction with political oppression and aspiration toward freedom. It clearly demonstrated that the true subjects of democracy are not those in power or politicians, but ordinary citizens who protect the frontlines of life.

However, democracy is not completed simply by having the form of institutions and laws. What is more crucial is whether power is exercised strictly according to law and procedure, and whether citizens' criticism and oversight function properly. If checks on power weaken, the foundation of democracy will inevitably be shaken.

Moreover, the maturity of democracy is directly connected to citizens' daily lives. Beneath the Busan-Masan Democratic Uprising lay not only a yearning for political freedom but also deep discontent with accumulated economic polarization and inequality in living conditions. The same is true today. If job insecurity, housing instability, and inequality intensify, citizens will find it difficult to feel the fruits of democracy in their daily lives.

Political freedom and social justice are never separate issues. Democracy truly takes root in citizens' daily lives only when everyone has the opportunity to build their lives under fair rules and the voices of the socially vulnerable are reflected in policy.

Solidarity of inclusion that does not turn difference into enemy

Today, political conflict in our society rarely finds compromise, only maximizing antagonism between camps. Rather than persuading those with different views, we exclude them; we are lenient with our own party's mistakes while applying harsh punitive standards to the other side's errors. A pattern of daily life repeats. Conflict is natural in democratic society, but turning it into antagonism and distrust where dialogue is impossible destroys the source of democracy itself.

The lesson of solidarity left by the Busan-Masan Democratic Uprising does not mean everyone must think alike. It lies in the wisdom of people with different circumstances and opinions joining hands to solve problems of the community. A majority's support cannot justify every decision, nor can minority opinion be excluded. Dialogue and compromise are not a retreat from principle but a democratic process of coordinating interests to find the best solution the community can bear.

The responsibility of the political establishment is immense. It must abandon the convenience of inciting conflict to rally fans and supporters, and demonstrate responsible politics that considers the interests of society as a whole. Citizens, too, must not be trapped in camp logic and must be able to apply identical democratic standards and hold everyone equally accountable.

Turning memory into today's responsibility, and into the Constitution

Remembering history does not stop at mourning the past but means carrying that memory forward as today's responsibility. The history of the Busan-Masan Democratic Uprising must not become the monopoly of a single political force. The will of citizens who demanded freedom and rights in the face of dictatorship transcends specific ideologies or camps. The standards applied when evaluating past power must be applied equally when looking at today's power.

Now is the time to firmly inherit the historical significance of the Busan-Masan Democratic Uprising as constitutional value. The current Constitution's Preamble specifies the inheritance of the March 1 Movement and the April 19 democratic ideals. Adding to this the specification of citizens' resistance and sacrifice toward democracy, including the Busan-Masan Democratic Uprising and the May 18 Democratic Uprising, is a core task that determines what history the Republic of Korea respects and what values it will pass on to the next generation.

The values of freedom, justice, and democracy that citizens in Busan and Masan demanded standing in the streets 47 years ago remain as valid today. The path to carrying on the spirit of the uprising does not lie in repeating slogans of the past. It lies in today's practice of firmly holding power accountable, upholding law and principle, coordinating differences through dialogue, and listening to the voices of the weak.