Popular culture with political themes is never exempt from the realm of politics and cultural context that informs these products. Fictionalized politics may offer dramatized solutions to complex political problems by wise and moral leaders who adhere to positive (hegemonic) values.

While political drama can be highly entertaining to audiences, researchers may find a lot of interesting political potential embedded even in superhero movies. Similarly some TV-shows, like 24 (2001-2010) reflect the cultural anxieties (of specific audiences) of the time and are thus at least indirectly political.

Political fiction and fictional politics

Ruth Wodak has recognized American television in her works as a powerful cultural force, that can set boundaries between fiction and reality – or erode them – on a global-but-local scale. American TV shows are also reproduced to different local markets: 24, for example, has been reproduced into an Indian setting in 24: India (2013).

Liesbeth Van Zoonen argues that (over-)dramatizing politics is not necessarily detrimental, as in some cases politically tinged popular culture can also support civic values and engagement.

In some cases politically tinged popular culture can also support civic values and engagement.

The fictionalization of politics creates worlds that are more traditionally manageable by politics, and seeks to establish appealing values and an appreciation for politics. Politicians can draw on globalized archetypes of fictional political leaders for inspiration and familiarity in style for themselves or project them onto others, in the form of familiar narratives of idealists, saviors, or villains, with the last becoming increasingly dominant not only in US popular culture in the late 2000s.

This has increasing relevance for politics as studies find that fictional politics still influence audience perceptions of what “real-life” politics and political actors are like, even when the information is disclaimed as factually incorrect, fiction nevertheless remains salient and interferes with audience perceptions.

Studies find that fictional politics still influence audience perceptions of what “real-life” politics and political actors are like.

This article discusses another case of an explicitly political TV-series that has been moved from local (American) to global, but then localized anew to a very different local setting: the original US version of Designated Survivor (2006-2019) and Designated Survivor: 60 Days (2019–), placed in South Korea. Fair warning: this discussion will include spoilers of the plots of both shows.

Designated Survivor(s): The premise reflecting a crisis of politics?

The way original American show is set up literally obliterates politics as usual: a terrorist attack wipes out the entire United States’ government except for Tom Kirkman, Secretary of Housing, who is the designated survivor – the last man in the line of succession of a democratic government, promoted to the position of president pro tem.

The protagonist – an “accidental president” – is thus tasked with governing a nation – a Western superpower no less – in a time of crisis. The president has to navigate issues both foreign and domestic to stabilize a reeling nation, with the more craven nature of political expediency often on full display on the show.

What is notable that the protagonist is not a career-politician, but an academic who has been brought in from the outside. His lack of political savvy is also emphasized, but often positively so.

This seems to be in line with a broader trend that hints at underlying distrust at career politicians and the political establishment, with politicians actively distancing themselves a bit from politics (or polity), suggesting that they have ended up in politics somewhat by chance or circumstance, rather than ambition or calculation.

It appears that to be an honest and decent politician one cannot be tainted by being part of the political establishment – a common populist argument. In Designated Survivor politics is represented as duplicitous and strategic and often dishonest. Ideals, it seems, lose out to various forms of corruption: democracy is emphatically fragile.

It appears that to be an honest and decent politician one cannot be tainted by being part of the political establishment – a common populist argument.

While it would make sense to utilize this approach in the United States’ cultural-political context, it is less clear whether or not this reflects South Korean distrust of politics/politicians. The Korean version of the show utilizes a similar scenario to the original: the protagonist Park Mu-jin, Minister of Environment, becomes an Acting President for 60 days after an act of terror, which has wiped out most of the Korean political establishment.

Mr. Park is a professor of environmental technology, who rather sticks to numbers and data than “the game of politics”. The protagonist was originally persuaded by president to join his cabinet in a specifically non-political role: “you will be committed only to environmental ‘policy’ affairs for ‘public interest’, never involved in politics”. However, it is evident early on in the show that partisan politics and policy matters are intertwined.

In fact, Mr. Park was fired from his position just before the attack due to holding out on a matter of principle on an issue of environmental policy versus trade between South Korea and the US. The issue is both contemporarily relevant and notably more internationally oriented than in the original US show. At the same time it signals the suggested virtues of the non-politician.

Real-life politics?

Article 71 in the Constitution of the Republic of Korea states the order of succession. It should be noted that Article 71 has already been used nine times through the history of South Korea, in such dramatic upheavals such revolutions and coups.

This has even happened twice in the 21^st century: in 2003 Prime Minister Goh Kun became an Acting President after President Roh Moo-hyun was impeached by the National Assembly (South Korean national parliament) and on December 9^th 2016, when President Park Geun-hye was impeached in turn, again by the National Assembly, for her abuses of power and constitutional violations, and thus replaced by Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn.

The Korean title of the show refers to Article 68(2) of the constitution, which dictates that a presidential successor has to be elected within sixty days. However, this is not always literal: in 2003 Acting President only served for 64 days before President Roh returned to power after the Constitutional Court judged the parliamentary impeachment as groundless. In 2016, the Constitutional Court decided to approve the parliamentary impeachment, which caused an early Presidential Election to be organized within 60 days after the final decision of the Constitutional Court.

Mr. Hwang had performed the role of Acting President for 153 days in total, before the incumbent President Moon Jae-in was inaugurated on May 10^th, 2017. Hence, South Korean audiences have experienced acting president periods in real contexts until recently, which could contribute to increasing reality of the Korean-version drama.

A shared motif political distrust

Borrowing many elements from the original drama but also revising them to fit with own contexts (situations, scenes and characters), the Korean version succeeded in attracting a high interest from local audiences. In fact, the public perception of politics and politicians are very negative and narrow in South Korea

Regardless with parties or ideologies, it is a prevailed notion in Korea that most of political groups and politicians advocating noble causes and values are hypocritical and their real motivations are to seek for more powers and material interests. This perception is enhanced often by media outlets.

Decline of trust in politics and politicians is a common problem in South Korea, the US, and many European democracies, despite differences. The issue is more salient in countries which operate a ”winner-takes-all” styled majoritarian system of democracy, in presidential and other representative parliamentary election systems.

Between the shows, this is a shared motif. It is unclear whether the crisis of legitimacy and trust embedded in our contemporary representative democracy could be resolved by finding a “clean” figure, uncontaminated from established politics and putting him/ her into a highest place in the representative chain of democratic governance.

It is unclear whether the crisis of legitimacy and trust embedded in our contemporary representative democracy could be resolved by finding a “clean” figure, uncontaminated from established politic.

“A lotus in the mud” is a Buddhist symbol referring to the essence of enduring performance towards a true enlightenment. As a metaphor it is familiar to many Koreans as well. The motif of finding a new, clean and competent figure with less (corrupting) experience in established politics has been continuously revived in Korea.

However, this in itself creates a dilemma: even the cleanest candidate is prone to become corrupted, overw helmed by the ‘vortex’ of established politics (typical in Korean politics) or alternatively failing to reform the system due to naïve understanding of political realities and lack of practical capabilities. The cycle of political distrust seems endemic.

In both shows the protagonist gradually learns how to exercise political competency and practical wisdom while not giving up own principles and civic values. In this respect, both dramas demonstrate a high quality of contemporary political dramas advanced a further step beyond the cycle of distrust.

Living in fear of the other?

Although the shows are framed by a national security emergency, they diverge in their definition of the other. Given the background of the global war on terror, it makes sense in the original show to call on the asymmetric and elusive threat of terrorism. However, in the Korean version of the series, the assumed adversary is a fixed, symmetric, and above all historical enemy: the People’s Republic of Korea – North Korea.

The two Koreas remain in a cease fire without a peace treaty since the Korean War (1950-1953). International disputes surrounding North Korean actions and provocations have been continuous after the end of the international Cold War regime.

This makes North Korean aggression a plausible narrative for South Koreans, especially as there are no serious conflicts with Islamic countries. However, it is also a stereotyped presumption, when considering the political tension has lessened, at least to some extent, on the Korean Peninsula, especially since the ”Candlelight Revolution” in South Korea (2016-2017) and new policy directions of the Moon Jae-in government.

Thus it makes sense to also look to “the enemy within”: in both shows there is also the concern of the military command structure taking over the civil administration. The inexperienced president pro tem is seen as a liability by more hawkish military commanders.

Especially in South Korea, with 27 years of military dictatorship (1961-1987), this storyline is meaningful. This very real historical context adds an edge of reality to the drama’s plot of a military coup by a radical group in the armed forces. Unlike in the US context, without similar historical experience, there is an implied more serious threat to the political regime from within.

The state of South Korean democracy needs to be understood also in relation with the unstable regional security order in North-East Asia.

Fortunately, reforms of the military enacted in the early 1990s and the rapid growth of civil society since the 1987 democratization make such a regression unlikely. Still, mindful of such threats to democracy, a government probe into the possibility of aggressive military reactions to the “Candlelight Revolution” was later revealed by South Korean media.

The state of South Korean democracy needs to be understood also in relation with the unstable regional security order in North-East Asia. These offer useful causes to right-wing political groups, who want to restrict domestic democracy and free civil society. Moreover, such situations may result in military interventions from the US and China on the Korean matter.

Japan is also a regional power player, but crucially only formally allied with the United States, not South Korea. There was recent controversy following a suggestion by the United Nations Command to allow sending of Japanese troops to the Korean peninsula in a military conflict. The South Korean defense ministry protested strongly, as several historical tensions still exist in that regard.

The indirectly involved powers, such as Japan, China, Russia, the United States, might not have the peace-making task on the Peninsula and national interests of South Korea as a highest priority of agenda. This, too, is reflected in the show.

Grounds for optimism?

In both shows, it is later revealed that the terrorist attacks were domestic plots to maneuver a specific group into more authoritarian political power. Once more, the distrust of the political system and the absolute immorality of politics is on full display – arguably to the point of paranoia. American popular culture uses convoluted conspiracies as a dramatic staple, but in South Korea the risk of internal enemies is somewhat different.

Both shows depict the craven political opportunism of attacking minorities. In the original show the targets are American Muslims, but in the Korean version North Korean defectors are selected as the “localized” version of a terrorist sleeper-cell.

Once more, the distrust of the political system and the absolute immorality of politics is on full display – arguably to the point of paranoia.

As a matter of fact, more than 30,000 North Korean defectors form a very vulnerable minority within South Korea, given their poor political and socio-economic status. Despite governmental support in the form of financial and social services, many of them inevitably experience various forms of discrimination.

As military and political conflicts between the two Koreas continue to exist, such minorities are vulnerable to far-right political groups and media. However, it should be noted that South Korea has an established commitment to the rule of law and human rights; massive violations of a specific social group’s fundamental human rights would be hard to be successful in reality.

In addition, the Korean version of the show gained praise from the critics particularly for the episode dealing with the Law of Non-Discrimination (on the grounds of gender, ethnicity, religion, etc.). Recommended strongly by the UN, the legislation has been hotly debated in South Korea during the last decade.

“For what should we do politics, if we could not make this kind of reform initiatives!”

While progressive civil society organizations and human rights advocacy groups strongly demand this legislation, they have been equally strongly resisted by religious groups, who especially attack alleged legal provisions to protect the equal rights of the LGBT community.

Conservative South Korean Christians advocate for a fundamentalist interpretation of morality, and they have sufficient financial and organizational resources to impact major parties and individual politicians. As it stands, all progress on the issue has been blocked.

The show actually takes some time to debate the issue, and the question of morality over political expediency. The president pro tem Park finally puts the proposed legislation up for public debate, stating: “For what should we do politics, if we could not make this kind of reform initiatives!”

The episode, reflecting public demands for the principled politics and good leadership based on a scholarly conscience and reasoning, as well as universal values, provides a good example of the possibility that a well-made political drama can reflect thoroughly and at the same time overcome the realities.

Hyeon Su Seo valmistui yhteiskuntatieteiden tohtoriksi Tampereen yliopistosta vuonna 2017. Hän työskentelee nyt apulaisprofessorina Korean National University of Education -yliopistossa.

Mikko Poutanen on yhteiskuntatieteiden tohtori Tampereen yliopistossa ja Politiikasta-lehden vastaava päätoimittaja.

Julkaisu When political television goes local: Designated Survivor ilmestyi ensimmäisenä Politiikasta.

A special diplomacy at Pyeongchang Olympics

Leaving behind concerns about increased tensions on the Korean Peninsula, the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics has begun on February 9, 2018. The 2018 Olympics is particularly interesting in terms of politics since it has provided a momentum for promoting a peace in the Peninsula. North Korea sent their athletes, trained supporters and art performance groups, with a highest-profile diplomatic delegation led by Kim Young-nam, North Korea’s formal head of state.

Moreover, Kim Yo-jong, the sister of Kim Jong-un, visited South Korea as a special envoy of North Korean supreme leader. She made a ‘historical’ handshake with Moon Jae-in, South Korean President, during the Opening Ceremony at the Olympic Stadium on 9 February, and had a luncheon meeting with President Moon again at the presidential palace at Seoul on 10 February 2018.

In this meeting, she delivered her brother’s letter to the South Korean President, expressing a wish of the North Korean leader to invite Moon to Pyeongyang at the “earliest date possible”. Moon responded to the invitation, “Let us make it happen by creating the necessary conditions in the future.”

What has made a change happen?

This seems a dramatic change, given that North Korea continued to proceed with their nuclear weapon program that included test launches of ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) until November 2017, and Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un exchanged insane words to threaten a total war against each other. What has brought this change in the relationship between two Koreas?

First, a change in the strategic approach of North Korea can be considered a key reason. Last year North Korea did not stop to test its nuclear armament capabilities, even facing much stronger criticisms and economic sanctions from the international community. With a confidence provided by these technological achievements, it seems to make a strategic turn.

The delegates of two sides agreed to constitute a united Team Korea and march together at the Olympics under one flag.

Kim Jong-un delivered an unexpected message in his new year’s speech that 2018 must be a turning point for improving the relation with South Korea. He even wished a success of the Pyeongchang Olympics, which offered a starting point for the negotiations between the South and North. The delegates of two sides agreed to constitute a united Team Korea and march together at the Olympics under one flag.

Besides the confidence with consolidated power position of Kim Jong-un, there is also an urgent need for Kim to reconsider his strategy. With the hardening UN sanctions against the regime, he has to find a new path for negotiating with the US.

Because Trump administration did not show a concerted will to begin a direct dialogue with North Korea despite a series of intended provocations, Kim seems to think that improving the relation with South Korea would be inevitable. What is unchanged would be that the key aim of North Korea is to gain a guarantee of the regime security by establishing a normal diplomatic relation with the US.

Expansive effects of a democratic transition in South Korea

A more fundamental reason behind the change might be found in extensive effects of so-called “candlelight civil revolution” and following democratic transitions in South Korea. To understand this dynamic, we should note that international relations and domestic politics are closely interconnected in the Korean Peninsula.

International relations and domestic politics are closely interconnected in the Korean Peninsula.

Certainly, it is a common phenomenon in many small and medium sized states that are located in borderline regions between competing powers, including Finland, having to adapt through the 20^th century between the East and West. Two conservative governments in South Korea during 2008–2017 had tried to revive an authoritarian style of politics that reminded people of military dictatorship during 1970–1980s; they also adopted irrationally hawkish policy lines against North Korea, responding to North Korea’s redevelopment of nuclear arms. Established inter-Korean co-operation channels and other measures to ease military tensions were cut as a whole, including the Kaesong Industrial Complex which was shut down on February 2016.

Meanwhile, Obama administration had stuck to the so-called ‘strategic patience’ policy towards North Korea under a new strategy of ‘Pivot to Asia’, but it just resulted largely in an ineffective foreign policy lacking a real political will to resolve Korean issues. Given its nuclear negotiation with Iran and restoring a diplomatic relation with Cuba, such pointless treatment of Obama administration about Korean issues was disappointing.

In these backgrounds, North Korean matters have been developed into a real international crisis, along with the inheritance of Kim Jong-un in North Korea and the election of Trump as the 45^th President of the USA.

A sudden change of South Korean government through an early presidential election can be regarded as a crucial factor that inserted a different direction of policy inputs in the domestic and international context.

What has calmed down the crisis, which caused a serious risk of breaking out a war during last year? A sudden change of South Korean government on May 2017 through an early presidential election can be regarded as a crucial factor that inserted a different direction of policy inputs in the domestic and international context. In this regard, we can say even extensive effects of participatory democratic movements in South Korea called as the ‘candlelight civil revolution’, in which more than 17 million people joined peaceful demonstrations across the country between November 2016 and March 2017. They demonstrated a strong political will calling for not only impeaching the corrupted ex-President Park Geun-hye but also transitional social and political reforms including peace-oriented, alternative approaches in dealing with the North Korean nuclear crisis.

President Moon Jae-in elected through the course has pursued a new and coherent foreign policy combining both sanctions and dialogue. He already suggested holding a new summit between two Koreas through his Berlin Declaration on August, 2017. Meeting frequently the leaders of neighboring countries and superpower leaders such as Trump, Xi Jinping, Shinzo Abe and Vladimir Putin, he has continued to persuade them, especially President Trump, that: it is necessary to strengthen the UN sanctions against the North Korean military ventures; at the same time, military options that can lead to another Korean War must be excluded while peaceful, diplomatic solutions should be pursued first and foremost.

Moon’s government has gradually restored, at least to some extent, an initiative power with maneuvering room for driving own policy lines related to the Korean Peninsula. Trump has shown, despite unstable and unpredictable characters in his style of politics, a more respecting attitude to South Korean government’s policy stance, even while exchanging dangerous words with Kim Jong-un. One measure taken in those processes was to postpone the joint military operation of South Korea and the US to after the Pyeongchang Olympics and Paralympics. 

Is it possible for the third summit between two Koreas to be held in 2018?

A central question is now whether this temporary phase of peace and dialogue between two Koreas cultivated by enduring efforts of Moon  government and in the wake of Pyeongchang Olympics in South Korea would lead to a long-term settlement.

It is expected that President Moon would send his special envoys soon to North Korea and the United States, as well as China, Japan and Russia, perhaps before April when the joint military operation of the US and South Korean Army postponed is assumed to restart. The most crucial aim for such diplomacy would be to get a common understanding and furthermore support for advancing inter-Korean dialogues from neighbor superpowers, especially Trump administration.

There must be many risks and barriers uneasy to pass through. Nevertheless, there is a hope now!

Mr. Moon already indicated when he received the letter from Kim Jong-un that there would be ‘necessary conditions’ to be met before his visit to Pyeongyang. A vigorous role of South Korea to facilitate the negotiation between North Korea and the US, while inducing North Korea to take meaningful measures to freeze its nuclear weapon program would be essential for future process.

It is difficult to predict the result of all these developments; there must be many risks and barriers uneasy to pass through. Nevertheless, there is a hope now! South Korean people want to see that President Moon would be able to prove his capability as the ‘negotiator’, as The Times characterized him before, and thereby open the way towards a peaceful co-existence of two Koreas.

Hyeon Su Seo is a PhD and research fellow at the Faculty of Management, University of Tampere, as well as at the Institute of Korean Political Studies, Seoul National University.

Julkaisu Through the Pyeongchang Olympics to Third Inter-Korean Summit? ilmestyi ensimmäisenä Politiikasta.