Last updated on August 16, 2024
In April 2011, Japan had a number of local elections for governors, mayors and local legislators.
The elections yielded some interesting results: Ishihara Shintaro, the right-wing governor of Tokyo was reelected to a fourth term, whereas a local reform party, led by reform-minded governor Hashimoto Toru took control of the Osaka prefectural government and became the largest party in the Osaka city government. The results were a reminder that Japan’s two most important cities are indeed different and often go in opposite directions.
The results from Osaka are particularly interesting because the local reform party known as the Osaka Restoration Association is now the most important player in Osaka politics. The Democratic Party of Japan, led by Prime Minister Naoto Kan, and the opposition Liberal Democratic Party, which ruled Japan from 1954-2009 find themselves in the minority in the city and prefecture that form the core of Japan’s second most populated urban area. The Osaka Restoration Association is dedicated to realizing Governor Hashimoto’s goal of streamlining local government in the area by unifying the city and prefectural government and reorganizing the local government entities. Much of the victory stems from the governor’s popularity.
For Korea, the Osaka election is not big news because Korean voters are masters in the art of surprise, as the results of special elections on April 27 showed. Popular local politicians and local parties have done well in elections; the popularity of the Democratic Labor Party in Ulsan is an example of this. Lingering regionalism has made it difficult for national parties to become truly national, as elections in Daegu and Gwangju repeatedly show. Politics in Korea can, and often is, local.
The broader meaning of the Osaka election for Korea is related to the idea of a “second city.” A second city is a city that serves as a counter weight to the dominant city and distinguishes itself culturally. The rivalry between the dominant city and the second city creates dynamism, with the second city often being the more innovative of the two. Beyond Tokyo and Osaka, Moscow and Saint Petersburg, New York and Chicago, London and Manchester are historical first-second-city combinations.
At times in Korea, Busan has played the second city role, but it has gradually weakened as Seoul has become ever more dominant. The same could be said, of course, of Osaka and other second cities, but these cities manage to maintain their sense of dynamism and remain influential in national life. Busan, by contrast, rarely makes the news and exerts little influence. New ideas and trends rarely emerge in Busan and, except for the annual film festival in October, cultural activities have little national impact. Busan has also failed to adapt to changes in the Korean economy and the population is declining at a faster pace than any other large city in Korea.
The idea of a second city is closely linked to the concept of “third places” between home and work. In “The Great Good Place,” Ray Oldenburg argued that places other than home (first place) and work (second place), such as main streets, cafes, bars, and community centers, and local stores, nurture a sense of community and democracy by leveling social differences and creating a space for grassroots politics.
Korean cities are full of third places, including many offline “virtual third places.” The vitality of third places helps explain the success of the democracy movement because home and work are hierarchical in Korea. The vitality of virtual third places confirms their continued importance today.
The question, then, is whether Korea can continue to do well with vital third places, but without a true second city. The answer to the question depends on the definition of “doing well.” If doing well is defined as continued economic growth and growing cultural influence through Hallyu, all of which emerges from Seoul, then things will be fine. If, on the other hand, doing well is defined as a balanced economic growth and more developed politics, then the need for a second city becomes clear.
Unlike third places, a second city can bind voices from various third places together into a coherent whole that can make an impact on national life. It can serve as a laboratory for change and nurture future leaders who can affect the change. A second city, then, is a third place with a scale that can nurture national political culture in the same way that third places nurture the grassroots.
As is well known, Korea has by far the highest concentration of wealth and power in one urban area than any other major industrial democracy. It may also have the most undeveloped politics. Pouring money into Busan to create a thriving second city is impractical economically and politically. Rather, the solution lies in finding a way to do something that has eluded every leader since Park Chung-hee: balanced regional development. What could that be?