What was left behind by the crushing defeat?
Published: 11 Apr. 2024, 20:03
Kim Hyun-ki
The author is an editorial writer of the JoongAng Ilbo.
Three factors can determine an election outcome — force, candidates and how a campaign rivalry is structured. Until early March, a month prior to the April 10 parliamentary election, the People Power Party (PPP) had a head start in the race. In terms of force, the refreshing face of Han Dong-hoon, interim leader of the PPP, gained the upper hand. The governing party also scored points in nominating candidates in the election thanks to the Democratic Party (DP)’s lopsided nominations of candidates solely based on their ties with DP leader Lee Jae-myung. But the winds started to change on March 10 when former Defense Minister Lee Jong-sup secretly flew out of the country to take up his new role as an ambassador to Australia. The government and the president said they didn’t know about a travel ban on the ambassador by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO).
Lee’s sudden departure appeared to the public as if the president was evacuating a criminal suspect. Approval ratings for the PPP began to nosedive after Lee’s “escape.” Han’s bravado also lost steam as he dilly-dallied in fear of offending the presidential office. While a prosecutor, Han habitually said the driving force determines the outcome of an investigation. He vowed to show such valor during the campaign. But when he lost that virtue, the campaign field suddenly shifted toward Lee Jae-myung. This is where the PPP lost points in terms of force. Instead of sticking to a consistent slogan of liquidating the democracy movement era figures, the PPP turned to punishing Lee and Cho Kuk — a former justice minister who created the Rebuilding Korea Party — and judging those criminals. The DP’s simpler campaign chant of vindicating an incompetent government instead gained grounds, delivering a second blow to the PPP. The governing party was facing an uphill battle.
There was a chance for the PPP to make the last-mile sprint. The party built hope that it could steal 10 to 15 seats from the controversy over DP candidates Yang Moon-seok and Kim Jun-hyeok. But President Yoon threw cold water on the PPP’s campaign front once again on April 1. In his long speech to the nation primarily on medical reform focused on increasing the medical school quota, which sparked a collective walkout by trainee doctors, 99 percent was about how he was right about his actions. The condescending tone from the president could have appalled voters who had voted for him in the last presidential election.
Watching the live broadcast of his address reminded me of his joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in Tokyo after his summit in March last year. A Japanese reporter asked the Korean president to elaborate on the third-party compensation program Seoul proposed to resolve the impasse over Japan’s wartime forced labor. Yoon made some explanation and then looked straight at the reporter to say, “If that’s not enough, I can go on.” Japanese reporters flinched at his tone. President Yoon tends to speak in a condescending tone as he seems to believe he cannot be wrong. There is a saying in the political community that “Han says the right things in a cheeky way, Lee tells all the wrong things in a believable way, and Yoon simply speaks from a high place.”
The election is over. It was the most repulsive and distasteful election. I hate to ruin the moment for the winners, but it will be awful for the people for the next four years. But let’s face it. Haven’t all elections over the last 30 years been terrible every time? We are going nowhere in politics. The quality of lawmakers is getting worse. The people and nation are getting more and more divided. As the New York Times pointed out, the election is about “gladiator politics.”
If we do not wish to see such a repugnant replay over and over, we must change the system. The government and legislature are always contentious. The elected president is lame for the half of his or her term. We must change the political system, whether it be a coalition government or a parliamentary system. Under a parliamentary system, the head of the state could change after several months. It may be true as seen in Japan’s case.
But if we have to endure the same old agony every five years, we should just try something new. Through trials and errors, politicians and the people would discover the flaws and try to find a solution. A leader with such capacity can last long, as seen in Germany and the United Kingdom. It may not be a coincidence that people generally are skilled in dialogue and compromise in countries based on coalition government or parliamentary system.
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.
Standards Board Policy (0/250자)