The Peter Principle [Eureka]

Lawrence Peter's warning about promotion has found a fresh target in South Korea's latest cabinet reshuffle. In his 1969 book The Peter Principle, the Columbia University professor argued that people in bureaucracies tend to be promoted until their incompetence becomes unmistakable.

Peter said promotions often reward past performance rather than ability suited to the new job. As a result, senior officials can rise into positions they cannot perform effectively. The lesson resembles the maxim associated with Socrates: know yourself. Accepting a position without understanding one's limits can harm both the individual and the organization.

The column applies that lesson to Kim Seung-won, the nominee for justice minister, and Yong Hye-in, the nominee for minister of gender equality and family. Allegations surrounding Kim's time as a lawyer include suspected improper solicitation related to expedited clinical trials for a COVID-19 drug. The controversy grew after a photograph emerged showing him with broker Yang, identified only by surname, and a judge who rejected an arrest warrant for a major pharmaceutical shareholder. Criticism has also intensified over his past work defending people accused of sex crimes.

Yong, meanwhile, faces renewed criticism over winning a second proportional-representation term through a satellite party. Critics say this exploited a loophole in the electoral system. She has also insisted on holding both a ministerial and parliamentary position, prompting suspicion that she does not want to give up state subsidies received by her Basic Income Party, despite positions she held in the past.

The writer says both nominees face growing questions about whether they are fit for their proposed posts. Candidates for senior office know that their pasts will be examined and that even politicians with strong public images can suffer a spectacular fall. Yet, the column asks, why did these two believe they would be different? It suggests they may lack the self-awareness to judge whether they could withstand legal and public scrutiny. Their criticism may be a disaster of their own making, but citizens should not have to keep paying for nominees who refuse to step aside or for appointing authorities who choose poorly.