By Sho Chang-young
Since December, whether by the solar or lunar calendar, putting aside the joy of welcoming the New Year, Korea has been going through a period of political upheaval.
Every day, various media outlets report the same breaking news. The public is concerned about the peculiar political situation that even judicial judgments are required. No expert can easily predict when and how this unstable state will subside.
When I see some political figures appearing in the news, I think of the negative and positive synonyms regarding them: “politician” and “statesperson.” I learned these expressions when I was a student without voting rights. Here, the term “statesperson” is frequently used as a gender-neutral alternative to “statesman.”
In politics, two terms are habitually used interchangeably, but they carry distinct meanings. While both operate in the realm of governance, their motivations, approaches and legacies set them apart. A politician seeks power, often focusing on short-term gains, while a statesperson aspires to serve, prioritizing long-term progress over personal ambition.
A politician is primarily concerned with winning elections, securing influence and maintaining power. Their decisions often cater to immediate public opinion, sometimes at the expense of future generations. They may prioritize populist policies that guarantee reelection, even if those policies lack sustainability.
In contrast, a statesperson looks beyond the next election cycle. They make decisions based on principles, ethics and long-term benefits, even if those choices are unpopular in the short run. This type of leader exemplifies statesmanship by making difficult yet transformative decisions that shape the future of their nations.
Politicians often make decisions that serve their personal interests, political parties or close allies. They may manipulate public sentiment, engage in corruption or shift positions based on convenience rather than conviction. Their speeches and policies are often designed to win favor rather than drive meaningful change.
A statesperson, nevertheless, places the welfare of the people above personal gain. They demonstrate integrity, prioritize national interest over party loyalty and remain steadfast in their beliefs. Some of them remain committed to nonviolence and their independence, refusing personal rewards or political power.
Politicians often react to the status quo, adjusting their stance based on polls and trends. They may change their opinions often to align with shifting political winds. Their leadership is driven by survival rather than conviction.
A statesperson, on the other hand, leads with vision and moral courage. They foresee challenges, take proactive measures and remain resolute even in the face of adversity. They stand firm during crises, guiding their nations through hardship with unwavering determination.
In some cases, every statesperson resembles a politician but not every politician can be a statesperson. The difference lies in intention and impact — politicians seek power, while statespersons seek progress. A society that values leadership over political maneuvering will always thrive. The question is, which do we choose to follow?
Are the individuals who are now active in our political scene the politicians or the statespersons? The statespersons would be better. However, what if they tend to be the “politicos” who don’t belong to either? I don’t want to talk about the bad connotations of that slang. I wish there were no such ones now and ever.
Wait, it looks like the existing political circumstances seem to be dependent on judicial procedures. Regarding this, I anticipate that the related legal professionals will clearly do the right thing. I think it is because most members of our society are “plain and honest.”
Sho Chang-young is a retired high school teacher and former principal of Gunsan Girls' High School.
English (United States) ·