South Korea’s Embrace of Technocracy: Globalist’s Model for the West? By James Reed and Brian Simpson

Technocracy involves governance by experts, often leveraging technology and data-driven systems over democratic or ideological principles. In South Korea, this manifests through the integration of advanced technology, corporate dominance, and state policies that value efficiency and economic growth, sometimes at the expense of individual freedoms.

Chaebol Dominance and Economic Control:

South Korea's economy is heavily influenced by chaebols, family-controlled conglomerates like Samsung, Hyundai, and LG. These entities account for roughly 50% of GDP, with Samsung alone contributing about 15% of the nation's economic output in 2024. Their influence extends beyond economics into politics and culture, with chaebol leaders often wielding power comparable to government officials. For example, Samsung's chairman has historically influenced policy decisions, reflecting a system where corporate elites shape governance, a hallmark of technocracy, if not fascism.

The hereditary nature of chaebol leadership undermines democratic accountability. Unlike elected officials, chaebol executives are not subject to public scrutiny, yet their decisions impact millions, from labour policies to technological innovation. This aligns with technocratic governance, where expertise and efficiency trump democratic participation.

Technological Surveillance and Social Control:

South Korea's response to Covid-19 showcased its technocratic approach. The government implemented extensive contact-tracing systems using smartphone data, CCTV, and credit card records, achieving low infection rates but raising privacy concerns. A 2023 report by the Korea Institute for National Security Strategy noted that 78% of citizens accepted such measures for public health, but 62% worried about data misuse. This reflects a trade-off where efficiency and safety override individual privacy, a key technocratic trait.

The "smart city" initiative in Songdo, built with ubiquitous sensors and AI-driven infrastructure, exemplifies technocracy. Residents' movements are tracked to optimise urban planning, but critics argue this creates a "surveillance state." A 2024 study by Seoul National University found 65% of Songdo residents felt their privacy was compromised, yet 70% valued the city's efficiency.

Education and Workforce as Technocratic Tools:

South Korea's education system, rooted in historical Confucian values, emphasises academic performance as a path to success. The private education industry, with three times more academies than convenience stores in Seoul, drives intense competition, producing a highly skilled workforce tailored for tech-driven industries. This system, while efficient, prioritises measurable outcomes (exam scores) over individual creativity or well-being, aligning with technocratic principles.

The labour market, marked by high automation and long working hours (1,967 hours annually, among the highest in the OECD in 2024), reflects a technocratic focus on productivity. However, this has led to social issues like youth unemployment (7.8% in 2024) and wage stagnation for blue-collar workers, fostering resentment, particularly among young men.

Political Technocracy:

The 2024 martial law declaration by President Yoon Suk Yeol, later reversed, highlighted tensions between democratic ideals and technocratic control. Yoon justified it by citing "pro-North Korean forces" and economic instability, despite South Korea's robust economy (13th globally). This move, bypassing lawmakers, suggests a willingness to prioritise executive control over democratic processes, a technocratic tendency.

The government's push for AI and 5G infrastructure, with $45 billion invested in 2024, underscores a technocratic vision. Policies favour tech giants and chaebols, with limited public input, as seen in the rapid rollout of 5G networks covering 95% of the population by 2025.

Was South Korea ever fully in the Western liberal tradition? South Korea's alignment with the Western liberal tradition, characterised by individual rights, democratic governance, and free markets, has always been partial, shaped by its unique historical and cultural context:

Historical Context:

After the Korean War (1950–1953), South Korea adopted a democratic framework under U.S. influence, but authoritarian regimes dominated until the late 1980s. The 1987 democratisation movement established a more robust democracy, with free elections and civil liberties. However, Confucian values emphasising hierarchy and collective good over individual autonomy persisted, distinguishing South Korea from Western liberalism's focus on individual rights.

The Tripartite Security Pact with the U.S. and Japan in 2023, aimed at countering China, aligned South Korea with Western geopolitical interests. Yet, domestic policies often prioritised state-led development and corporate interests over liberal principles like transparency and public participation.

Cultural Divergence:

South Korea's Confucian heritage emphasises duty, family, and social harmony, contrasting with Western liberalism's emphasis on individual freedom. For example, the intense focus on education and social conformity, as seen in the "Republic of Private Education," reflects a collective drive for progress rather than individual choice.

Gender dynamics further highlight this divergence. The 2016 feminist protests against unpunished public assaults led to a backlash, with 80% of young men in 2024 believing they face discrimination and 50% identifying as anti-feminist. This "incel election" in 2022, electing a president with anti-feminist rhetoric, suggests a rejection of Western liberal values like gender equality, favouring traditional hierarchies.

Economic Model:

South Korea's economic miracle, transforming it from one of the world's poorest nations in the 1950s to a global powerhouse, relied on state-guided capitalism, not the free-market liberalism of the West. The government collaborated closely with chaebols, providing subsidies and protection in exchange for rapid industrialisation. This model, while effective, deviates from Western liberalism's emphasis on open competition and minimal state intervention.

South Korea's trajectory suggests a drift from the partial alignment it had with Western liberalism, particularly since the 2010s, toward a technocratic model that prioritises efficiency, corporate power, and state control:

Erosion of Democratic Norms:

The 2024 martial law episode, though brief, exposed vulnerabilities in democratic institutions. Yoon's unilateral action, bypassing legislative oversight, echoes technocratic tendencies where crisis management overrides democratic process.

Chaebol influence in politics, such as Samsung's alleged role in past corruption scandals (e.g., the 2017 impeachment of President Park Geun-hye), undermines democratic accountability, aligning with the Nation First claim of a "technocratic prison."

Surveillance and Privacy Trade-Offs:

The widespread acceptance of surveillance during Covid-19 and in smart cities like Songdo indicates a cultural willingness to sacrifice privacy for efficiency, contrasting with Western liberalism's emphasis on individual rights. A 2024 Pew Research survey found only 45% of South Koreans prioritised privacy over public safety, compared to 68% in the U.S.

Social and Gender Polarisation:

The gender divide, with young men's anti-feminist backlash and women's growing political activism, reflects a rejection of Western liberal values like egalitarianism. The election of a president on an anti-feminist platform in 2022, dubbed the "incel election," signals a cultural shift toward traditionalism, driven by economic frustrations and a male-heavy population (due to sex-selective abortions in the 1980s–2000s).

Technological Prioritisation:

South Korea's heavy investment in AI, automation, and 5G, often led by chaebols with government backing, prioritises technological advancement over social equity. For example, automation has displaced manufacturing jobs, disproportionately affecting men, while high-income inequality exacerbates social tensions. This focus on tech-driven growth over equitable distribution diverges from Western liberalism's balance of progress and social welfare.

The Nation First post argues South Korea is a "grim warning" of a corporate-dominated, technocratic future. This perspective is spot on:

Corporate Control: Chaebols' outsized role mirrors fears of global technocracies where unelected elites (e.g., tech giants) shape society. In South Korea, Samsung's influence over media, education, and policy illustrates this risk.

Social Costs: The low fertility rate (0.7 in 2024, the world's lowest) and aging population (17.8% over 65) reflect societal strain from technocratic priorities. Intense work culture and economic pressures deter family formation, a potential caution for other nations embracing similar models.

Democratic Backsliding: Events like the 2024 martial law declaration suggest that technocratic efficiency can undermine democratic norms, a concern for Western nations facing their own populist and authoritarian trends.

However, South Korea's technocracy is not a complete "defection" from liberalism but an evolution shaped by its unique context. It adopted democratic structures but never fully embraced Western individualism, retaining Confucian collectivism and state-led development. Its technocratic shift amplifies these traits, valuing efficiency and corporate power over liberal ideals, but it remains a democracy with active civil society and elections.

South Korea's embrace of technocracy, through chaebol dominance, surveillance, and tech-driven governance, marks a divergence from the Western liberal tradition, which it only partially adopted post-1987. Its Confucian roots, state-guided economy, and recent political shifts (e.g., martial law, anti-feminist backlash) highlight a system choosing efficiency and control over individual rights and democratic accountability. While not yet a "technocratic prison," as Nation First claims, South Korea's trajectory warns of the risks of unchecked corporate power and technological governance, offering lessons for nations balancing innovation with democratic values. Watch out Australia!

https://nationfirst.substack.com/p/is-korea-a-glimpse-into-our-future