Meiji Restoration was a revolution that transformed Japan into a modern state. However, those who succeeded in the revolution did not all work together to build the new nation. While they united to dismantle the old power structure, they diverged in the process of governing the country after seizing power. The greatest lesson from the Meiji Restoration is not the success of the revolution itself, but the importance of unity in governance.
In September 1877, in Shiroyama, Kagoshima, two heroes of the Meiji Restoration, Saigo Takamori and Okubo Toshimichi, ultimately could not reconcile. Once comrades in the revolution that toppled the Tokugawa shogunate, they became adversaries, pointing their guns at each other. The Seinan War, Japan's last civil war, ended with a victory for the Meiji government forces. This outcome was a result of the different paths chosen by those who had achieved the revolution together.
History often describes this conflict as a clash between idealism and realism. However, the essence is somewhat different. Both men shared the same goal of making Japan a prosperous modern nation. What diverged was not the goal itself, but the order in which to achieve it.
Saigo sought to establish a moral foundation first, while Okubo aimed to strengthen national power. Saigo was a leader who gathered people, whereas Okubo was a leader focused on managing the state. While Saigo was a revolutionary who dismantled the old order, Okubo was a builder who established the institutions and foundations of the new nation. He reorganized finances, promoted industry, and concentrated national resources on building modern administration and military. His role was crucial in laying the groundwork for Japan to compete with Western powers in a short period.
Ultimately, history accepted Okubo's choice. Japan pursued industrialization and established the foundations of a modern state. However, this victory came at a cost. The Seinan War left behind enormous war expenses, equivalent to a significant portion of the national revenue at the time, leading to inflation, fiscal austerity, rural devastation, and social conflict. Most importantly, the dissatisfaction and loss felt by the defeated samurai class were not politically absorbed, leaving deep societal fractures. The state grew stronger, but the political unity needed to bind society together could not keep pace. While victorious, the limitations of unity became evident.
The Meiji Restoration succeeded in creating a modern state, but the process of integrating various factions into a new order left considerable sacrifices and aftereffects. This remains a political lesson from the Meiji Restoration that resonates even today, over 150 years later.
This lesson is applicable to South Korean politics today. The upcoming Democratic Party convention next month should not be viewed merely as a competition for party leadership. It is the first leadership election for the ruling party since the inauguration of the Lee Jae-myung administration. The new leadership will need to support the president's governance philosophy through legislation, manage next year's budget, and lead the ruling party until the 2028 general elections. This convention is not just a procedure to elect a party leader; it is a process of laying the political foundation for future governance.
The Lee Jae-myung administration faces complex and heavy challenges. Tasks that will shape the nation's future, such as AI national strategy, enhancing semiconductor competitiveness, fostering advanced manufacturing and defense industries, energy transition, balanced regional development, and addressing low birth rates and aging, are all being pursued simultaneously. Externally, the administration must actively respond to U.S.-China strategic competition, global supply chain restructuring, and changes in trade order. All these tasks require long-term momentum and political stability.
Recently, there have been concerns in the political arena that no matter how much success is achieved in diplomacy and the economy, if the ruling party cannot be operated stably, the momentum for governance will not last long. This is a principle of politics that history has repeatedly shown, transcending the opinions of specific politicians. Diplomacy elevates the nation's status, and the economy improves the lives of citizens. However, the power to solidify and sustain those achievements lies in politics. If the president sets the direction for governance, the ruling party must play the role of turning that direction into reality.
Even if the government formulates policies and the president makes decisions, laws must pass through the National Assembly, and budgets require the Assembly's approval. If the government and ruling party do not move in the same direction, reform legislation will be delayed, budgets will drift, and it will be difficult to achieve policy outcomes that citizens can feel. Conversely, if the ruling party operates stably, policies can gain momentum, and governance can maintain consistency. The leadership of the ruling party is not merely an internal power issue; it is directly linked to the success or failure of national governance.
Viewing this convention solely as a contest between reform and growth, or between hardline and moderate approaches, risks missing the essence. The ruling party cannot exist solely through struggle like the opposition, nor can it be evaluated only on administrative performance like the government. It must possess the strength to promote reform, the responsibility to manage governance stably, and the leadership to unify diverse opinions. Internal competition is necessary, but the purpose of that competition should not be to exclude others. It should aim to create better policies and stronger governing capabilities.
The Democratic Party has already received the public's mandate to govern. What is now needed is to translate electoral victories into governance achievements. It will be difficult to operate governance stably if the party only looks to the support base that helped them win elections. Politics must consider not only the voices within the party but also the concerns of citizens who did not support them. The unity of the ruling party is not merely a matter of distributing positions among factions; it must be a process of incorporating the diverse interests and demands of society into government policy.
The Meiji government was able to push for strong centralization and industrialization because it had clear national goals and momentum. However, in the process, it failed to adequately address the losses and anger of those left behind, ultimately paying a steep price in civil war. The faster the pace of reform, the more important it is for politics to embrace those who feel left behind or excluded. Momentum and unity are not mutually exclusive; they are both essential conditions for governance.
After the Democratic Party convention, competition must come to an end. The new leader should not be merely a representative of the winners but a representative of the entire party. They must be able to embrace not only those who supported them but also party members and lawmakers who made different choices. A leadership that blindly follows the government or one that seeks to compete with the government is not desirable. The ruling party must correct the government's misdirection when necessary and unite to support needed reforms, sharing responsibility for governance outcomes.
History remembers the aftermath of elections longer than the results themselves. The Meiji Restoration demonstrated that building a nation and unifying it are distinct challenges. The ability to acquire power and the ability to operate it stably are not the same.
Elections create winners. However, governance is not completed solely through victory. Only when the government leads with the voices of those who competed and felt excluded can the nation move forward. This is the political lesson from the Meiji Restoration that resonates today: governance is completed not through victory, but through unity.
In September 1877, in Shiroyama, Kagoshima, two heroes of the Meiji Restoration, Saigo Takamori and Okubo Toshimichi, ultimately could not reconcile. Once comrades in the revolution that toppled the Tokugawa shogunate, they became adversaries, pointing their guns at each other. The Seinan War, Japan's last civil war, ended with a victory for the Meiji government forces. This outcome was a result of the different paths chosen by those who had achieved the revolution together.
History often describes this conflict as a clash between idealism and realism. However, the essence is somewhat different. Both men shared the same goal of making Japan a prosperous modern nation. What diverged was not the goal itself, but the order in which to achieve it.
Saigo sought to establish a moral foundation first, while Okubo aimed to strengthen national power. Saigo was a leader who gathered people, whereas Okubo was a leader focused on managing the state. While Saigo was a revolutionary who dismantled the old order, Okubo was a builder who established the institutions and foundations of the new nation. He reorganized finances, promoted industry, and concentrated national resources on building modern administration and military. His role was crucial in laying the groundwork for Japan to compete with Western powers in a short period.
Ultimately, history accepted Okubo's choice. Japan pursued industrialization and established the foundations of a modern state. However, this victory came at a cost. The Seinan War left behind enormous war expenses, equivalent to a significant portion of the national revenue at the time, leading to inflation, fiscal austerity, rural devastation, and social conflict. Most importantly, the dissatisfaction and loss felt by the defeated samurai class were not politically absorbed, leaving deep societal fractures. The state grew stronger, but the political unity needed to bind society together could not keep pace. While victorious, the limitations of unity became evident.
The Meiji Restoration succeeded in creating a modern state, but the process of integrating various factions into a new order left considerable sacrifices and aftereffects. This remains a political lesson from the Meiji Restoration that resonates even today, over 150 years later.
This lesson is applicable to South Korean politics today. The upcoming Democratic Party convention next month should not be viewed merely as a competition for party leadership. It is the first leadership election for the ruling party since the inauguration of the Lee Jae-myung administration. The new leadership will need to support the president's governance philosophy through legislation, manage next year's budget, and lead the ruling party until the 2028 general elections. This convention is not just a procedure to elect a party leader; it is a process of laying the political foundation for future governance.
The Lee Jae-myung administration faces complex and heavy challenges. Tasks that will shape the nation's future, such as AI national strategy, enhancing semiconductor competitiveness, fostering advanced manufacturing and defense industries, energy transition, balanced regional development, and addressing low birth rates and aging, are all being pursued simultaneously. Externally, the administration must actively respond to U.S.-China strategic competition, global supply chain restructuring, and changes in trade order. All these tasks require long-term momentum and political stability.
Recently, there have been concerns in the political arena that no matter how much success is achieved in diplomacy and the economy, if the ruling party cannot be operated stably, the momentum for governance will not last long. This is a principle of politics that history has repeatedly shown, transcending the opinions of specific politicians. Diplomacy elevates the nation's status, and the economy improves the lives of citizens. However, the power to solidify and sustain those achievements lies in politics. If the president sets the direction for governance, the ruling party must play the role of turning that direction into reality.
Even if the government formulates policies and the president makes decisions, laws must pass through the National Assembly, and budgets require the Assembly's approval. If the government and ruling party do not move in the same direction, reform legislation will be delayed, budgets will drift, and it will be difficult to achieve policy outcomes that citizens can feel. Conversely, if the ruling party operates stably, policies can gain momentum, and governance can maintain consistency. The leadership of the ruling party is not merely an internal power issue; it is directly linked to the success or failure of national governance.
Viewing this convention solely as a contest between reform and growth, or between hardline and moderate approaches, risks missing the essence. The ruling party cannot exist solely through struggle like the opposition, nor can it be evaluated only on administrative performance like the government. It must possess the strength to promote reform, the responsibility to manage governance stably, and the leadership to unify diverse opinions. Internal competition is necessary, but the purpose of that competition should not be to exclude others. It should aim to create better policies and stronger governing capabilities.
The Democratic Party has already received the public's mandate to govern. What is now needed is to translate electoral victories into governance achievements. It will be difficult to operate governance stably if the party only looks to the support base that helped them win elections. Politics must consider not only the voices within the party but also the concerns of citizens who did not support them. The unity of the ruling party is not merely a matter of distributing positions among factions; it must be a process of incorporating the diverse interests and demands of society into government policy.
The Meiji government was able to push for strong centralization and industrialization because it had clear national goals and momentum. However, in the process, it failed to adequately address the losses and anger of those left behind, ultimately paying a steep price in civil war. The faster the pace of reform, the more important it is for politics to embrace those who feel left behind or excluded. Momentum and unity are not mutually exclusive; they are both essential conditions for governance.
After the Democratic Party convention, competition must come to an end. The new leader should not be merely a representative of the winners but a representative of the entire party. They must be able to embrace not only those who supported them but also party members and lawmakers who made different choices. A leadership that blindly follows the government or one that seeks to compete with the government is not desirable. The ruling party must correct the government's misdirection when necessary and unite to support needed reforms, sharing responsibility for governance outcomes.
History remembers the aftermath of elections longer than the results themselves. The Meiji Restoration demonstrated that building a nation and unifying it are distinct challenges. The ability to acquire power and the ability to operate it stably are not the same.
Elections create winners. However, governance is not completed solely through victory. Only when the government leads with the voices of those who competed and felt excluded can the nation move forward. This is the political lesson from the Meiji Restoration that resonates today: governance is completed not through victory, but through unity.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.