전환기(轉換期)의 국가(國家) 지도자(指導者)의 리더십에 관(關)한 연구(硏究) - 박정희 대통령과 리콴유 총리를 중심으로 - (A Study on Leadership of National Leaders During Transitional Period - Cases of President Park, Chung Hee and Prime Minister Lee, Kuan Yew)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 미래군사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국군사학논총 / 5권 / 1호 / 197 ~ 225페이지
· 저자명 : 정보연

초록

The aim of this study is to review and undertake in-depth analysis on strategies in areas of economy, defense, science and culture that national leaders in Republic of Korea (ROK) and Singapore are believed to have taken charge of during the periods with great uncertainties and volatilities, under the assumption that leaders in such nations must have designed viable strategies in order to achieve a spectacular performance as evidenced. by today``s economic prosperity against all odds in notoriously resource-poor conditions. For this purpose, I introduced then economic situations of Korea and Singapore as an independent variable, national administration by Park, Chung Hee and Lee, Kuan Yew based on leadership as a parameter and today``s economic situations of Korea and Singapore a dependent variable, respectively. While both President Park, Chung Hee and Prime Minister Lee, Kuan Yew became national leaders when the future was becoming increasingly uncertain and the economies were on the verge of collapse, they achieved remarkable and miraculous economic growth with resolute determination and brilliant strategies. One of commonalities of two leaders was that they shared clear sense of purposes and confidence in what they were doing, never caved in to any opposition or resistance in carrying out national projects of their design, and never intended to accommodate populism, Such unyielding and unwavering stances by two leaders played a role to a degree in painting themselves as dictators with a same brush ``There was a significant difference in political agenda between President Park who rose to power through military coup and Prime Minister Lee who reached the top of national leadership through legitimate constitutional procedures. Whereas President Park struggled to weather the storms from opposition parties and the unfavorable media coverages, PM Lee could manage to jut his policies in place with relative easiness. However, two leaders tried their utmost to transform difficulties and frustrations into ``blessings in disguise``, and successfully found real blessings in the President Park was at the front and center in searching for national agenda and issues, in making decisions, and in putting them into action in accordance with priorities. In contrast, though PM Lee played a leading role in identifying and deciding national agenda and issues, he encouraged working level officials to prioritize and carry them into effect Both leaders, however, applied same ``modus operandi`` in economic development, demonstrated extraordinary capabilities in finding a way around when faced. with insurmountable obstacles, and exemplified themselves by showing how to ``think outside the box`` on countless occasions. At the same time, they are well known to have making sure the projects and programs, once decided and put into action, were carried out in an unaltered manner without half-way done under no circumstances. While President Park persistently ensured the statecraft to revolve around himself as a center of universe, PM Lee sought to systemize and institutionalize the general process of governance. Such difference in the style of statecraft and governance of two leaders is believed to have contributed in rendering the ROK after the death of Park to become a society suffering from chaos and conflict, while leading Singapore to a nation of economic prosperity and growth in the absence of PM Lee. Without question a national leadership is required to cope with and tackle all types of extreme difficulties as well as to make right and timely decisions in agonizingly painful circumstances, Granting that, such qualities and competences of leaders as to take a central role in carrying out statecraft with unswerving confidence and faith at times of uncertainties and volatilities are necessary conditions to usher in a period of national development and economic prosperity, even though they might fall short of being appreciated with due respects and acclamations.

영어초록

The aim of this study is to review and undertake in-depth analysis on strategies in areas of economy, defense, science and culture that national leaders in Republic of Korea (ROK) and Singapore are believed to have taken charge of during the periods with great uncertainties and volatilities, under the assumption that leaders in such nations must have designed viable strategies in order to achieve a spectacular performance as evidenced. by today``s economic prosperity against all odds in notoriously resource-poor conditions. For this purpose, I introduced then economic situations of Korea and Singapore as an independent variable, national administration by Park, Chung Hee and Lee, Kuan Yew based on leadership as a parameter and today``s economic situations of Korea and Singapore a dependent variable, respectively. While both President Park, Chung Hee and Prime Minister Lee, Kuan Yew became national leaders when the future was becoming increasingly uncertain and the economies were on the verge of collapse, they achieved remarkable and miraculous economic growth with resolute determination and brilliant strategies. One of commonalities of two leaders was that they shared clear sense of purposes and confidence in what they were doing, never caved in to any opposition or resistance in carrying out national projects of their design, and never intended to accommodate populism, Such unyielding and unwavering stances by two leaders played a role to a degree in painting themselves as dictators with a same brush ``There was a significant difference in political agenda between President Park who rose to power through military coup and Prime Minister Lee who reached the top of national leadership through legitimate constitutional procedures. Whereas President Park struggled to weather the storms from opposition parties and the unfavorable media coverages, PM Lee could manage to jut his policies in place with relative easiness. However, two leaders tried their utmost to transform difficulties and frustrations into ``blessings in disguise``, and successfully found real blessings in the President Park was at the front and center in searching for national agenda and issues, in making decisions, and in putting them into action in accordance with priorities. In contrast, though PM Lee played a leading role in identifying and deciding national agenda and issues, he encouraged working level officials to prioritize and carry them into effect Both leaders, however, applied same ``modus operandi`` in economic development, demonstrated extraordinary capabilities in finding a way around when faced. with insurmountable obstacles, and exemplified themselves by showing how to ``think outside the box`` on countless occasions. At the same time, they are well known to have making sure the projects and programs, once decided and put into action, were carried out in an unaltered manner without half-way done under no circumstances. While President Park persistently ensured the statecraft to revolve around himself as a center of universe, PM Lee sought to systemize and institutionalize the general process of governance. Such difference in the style of statecraft and governance of two leaders is believed to have contributed in rendering the ROK after the death of Park to become a society suffering from chaos and conflict, while leading Singapore to a nation of economic prosperity and growth in the absence of PM Lee. Without question a national leadership is required to cope with and tackle all types of extreme difficulties as well as to make right and timely decisions in agonizingly painful circumstances, Granting that, such qualities and competences of leaders as to take a central role in carrying out statecraft with unswerving confidence and faith at times of uncertainties and volatilities are necessary conditions to usher in a period of national development and economic prosperity, even though they might fall short of being appreciated with due respects and acclamations.

참고자료

· 없음