Commemorating the 46th Anniversary of President Park Chung-hee's Passing - An Evaluation of a Dictator

Wasn't October 26th last Monday?
Actually, I had so much to say, but I couldn't write it all down. I'm re-uploading this post with more substance, expanding on the rushed version I posted earlier.
Generally, dictators are considered bad. They are viewed negatively. And they probably are.
That is how I was taught, and that is what most people think. There are quite a few dictators in history.
Dictators have committed great historical errors, massacred countless people, and left behind victims numbering in the thousands or even hundreds of thousands.
Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot.
The fates of dictators are tragic and gruesome. They face execution, assassination, exile, or suicide.
Ceaușescu, Park Chung-hee, Syngman Rhee, Hitler.
One might wish for all dictators to fail, but reality is not always so.
There have been quite a few dictators who lived long lives without illness.
Even now, there are people in the global community who have been dictating for over 40 years, and some for whom 40 years is quite easy.
Museveni, Putin.
Many dictators have emerged from socialist states.
Kim Jong-un, Stalin, Xi Jinping.
Surprisingly, there have also been cases of dictators emerging from liberal democratic nations.
Because of this, sophistry arises claiming that dictatorship is necessary or that the emergence of a dictator is inevitable.
Here, I would like to compare three individuals among the countless dictators.
Park Chung-hee of South Korea.
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the first president of Turkey.
President Allende of Chile.
The commonality between Park Chung-hee, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, and Allende is that they were dictators.
There will be no disagreement on that.
Then, since dictatorship is bad, does that mean these three were bad people? Well... ;;
Even among dictators, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Allende received immense respect and adoration from their homelands later in life.
In terms of approval ratings, they probably reached 80% to 90%. Isn't that surprising?
However, President Park Chung-hee of South Korea was not like that at all.
Some say Park Chung-hee is the number one former president, but they say his rating is 32%—only 32% ;;
In other words, President Park Chung-hee is remembered as an ordinary dictator.
Why does such a harsh evaluation exist?
It is undoubtedly true that President Park Chung-hee achieved the greatest economic feats in the 2,000-year history of the Korean Peninsula,
and while he receives high marks for this, on the other hand, he brought about a political dark age.
He disregarded the freedom and rights of the people and maintained long-term rule under the pretext of the North-South competition, the economy, and national security.
Even though he had the opportunity to sufficiently establish and develop the mechanisms of democracy, he did not do so.
If that is not the reason, what is?
Some might say, "Survival is what matters, why is democracy so important?"
But President Park Chung-hee was not only unfaithful to democracy, but he was also a person with many ethical issues involving corruption and personal greed.
Therefore, an evaluation of a figure must be a comprehensive assessment of all aspects. Since the political aspect carries significant weight for a politician, President Park Chung-hee does not receive the same level of respect from his country as Allende of Chile or Atatürk of Turkey.
People constantly talk about the "Miracle on the Han River" and "Economic Development," but the shadow cast by those achievements was quite large, and the reality is that those legacies remain even today, right?
In terms of the birth of chaebols, the intensification of capital concentration, real estate speculation, the solidification of the division between North and South, the creation of the urban poor, the widening wealth gap, the neglect of workers' treatment, and the failure to liquidate the remnants of Japanese colonial rule—he essentially scored zero.
Allende of Chile—he was the world's first socialist president to come to power through free and fair elections. He attempted to determine the fate of his country through extra-legal executive orders, such as nationalization measures, to escape Chile's economic dependency (a state of economic colonialism), but he was ruined by a right-wing coup. However, most leaders of socialist or communist states were essentially strong dictators in nature to overhaul existing systems. While Allende was similar, he did not cause the regression of democracy, the elimination of political rivals, long-term rule, or the widening wealth gap like President Park Chung-hee did. Rather, he put considerable effort into fixing those issues and worked hard to restore the country's economy. While he was far from power-driven corruption, nepotism, or bribery, he failed because of blatant foreign intervention in Chile, particularly by the United States. Thus, criticism of Allende or anti-dictatorship struggles within his own country were not as intense as they were against Park.
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk—a politician who receives immense adoration and respect in Turkey, comparable to a combination of King Sejong the Great and Admiral Yi Sun-sin. Despite being a figure who, in common parlance, ruled as he pleased without any checks on his power throughout his term, he is the only dictator in the world who faces no criticism. Why is that?
Because he revived a dying homeland, established the separation of religion and state in the Islamic world, and contributed significantly to the modernization of his country. Turkish citizens do not deny that Atatürk was a dictator. Even though he was a dictator, they accepted and acknowledged it. If Atatürk had acted only for his own benefit, amassed wealth through corruption, or engaged in scandals involving women and family corruption, the people would not have followed him.
Since there is much more to write about Atatürk than Allende, I will end it briefly here...
On the other hand, while it is true that President Park Chung-hee achieved tremendous economic feats and his merits far outweigh his faults, his faults are significant and cannot be easily overlooked or hidden.
President Park Chung-hee enjoyed imperial powers that cannot even be compared to the current presidential system.
If he had set his mind to it, he could have left a great political legacy.
However, he ruined politics using anti-communism, competition with North Korea, security, and the economy as excuses. And this was for 18 years. That is by no means a short period of time.
It is true that much of what Syngman Rhee did not do—namely, laying the foundation of the nation—was done extensively during President Park Chung-hee's era.
Completing systems, supplementing laws, laying roads, and constructing cities, and so on.
However, I believe that if anyone had an 18-year term instead of 5 years, they could have achieved that level of economic success.
It was 18 years. 18 years.
How wonderful would it have been if the economy had succeeded, the Saemaul Undong had succeeded, and politics had also succeeded?
Instead, he assassinated the independence activist and student soldier Jang Jun-ha; he attempted to kidnap and assassinate opposition leader Kim Dae-jung but failed;
He expelled opposition leader Kim Young-sam and created an unheard-of constitution called the Yushin Constitution, which allowed him to elect himself;
And without donating personal funds, he established Yeungnam University in the middle of his term, registered himself as its "cult leader," and ultimately resulted in this being passed down to his daughter.
Even if one is a dictator, if they had ruled properly, they would not receive only 32% support like he does now. I believe they could have received over 80%.
If he had, statues of King Sejong the Great, Admiral Yi Sun-sin, and then Park Chung-hee would already be standing in front of Gwanghwamun, just like Atatürk.
Is that not so?
Therefore, the public evaluation is that President Park Chung-hee is even inferior to Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam.
Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam? He is a person in the ranks of great leaders.
I repeat, President Park Chung-hee did many things well.
Among them, one can easily find the improvement of the Han River basin..
It is difficult to deny that you all are still enjoying the luxurious benefits of that today.