[Interview] Jo Hae-jin "Need to Ban More Than Three Consecutive Terms in the Same District... Will Address Strongly"

Innovative Directions Based on Personal Experience Returning in the 21st Term After the 18th and 19th Terms

Jo Hae-jin, Vice Chairman of the People Power Party Innovation Committee. / Photo by Yoon Dong-ju doso7@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kum Bo-ryeong] The People Power Party, which won consecutive victories in the presidential and local elections, has introduced the concept of 'innovation.' This signifies the need for the People Power Party to continuously adapt to the ever-changing environment. There is also the goal of demonstrating a responsible image to the public as the ruling party. Among these efforts, the most attention-grabbing proposal is the 'ban on serving more than three consecutive terms as a member of the National Assembly in the same electoral district,' suggested by Assemblyman Cho Hae-jin, who serves as the vice chairman of the party’s Innovation Committee. Regarding this, Assemblyman Cho expressed in an interview with Asia Economy on the 19th that "although it will not be easy, it will be dealt with strongly."

- When you previously mentioned the 'ban on serving more than three consecutive terms in the same district,' was there any discussion about it within the party?

▲ Some people called to say it was a good idea, while others said it was unreasonable. However, the details have not yet been finalized. The basic principle is that if someone is elected three times consecutively in one district and serves as a member of the National Assembly for 12 years, it is better to take a break once. That is the only consensus so far. We still need to discuss and finalize specifics such as when this rule will be applied, whether it will be retroactive, and if it is permissible to run in a different district.

- What led you to think this way?

▲ Before and after becoming a member of the National Assembly, I noticed that regardless of the party, the leaders tend to be those who have served four or five terms. Whether the party succeeds or fails largely depends on whether these four- or five-term members lead properly. While first- and second-term members raise their voices on issues, they do so only at the level of raising issues, not leading the party. However, in reality, four- or five-term members are less active than first- and second-term members. If the party needs reform, these senior members should be the ones to create it; if the ruling party needs to support the government, they should take the lead. But in reality, many of these senior members spend their time passively watching from behind. Serving three consecutive terms in one district exhausts one’s energy and passion. Has anyone who has served four terms had the vision to upgrade the party, advance parliamentary politics, and mature it? By then, they are already depleted. Unlike other professions, members of the National Assembly cannot recharge. For South Korean parties and the National Assembly to continuously upgrade, the four-term members who lead this must be prepared and ready to step up. If they stay in their seats out of inertia and plan to step down after four years, there is no need for them to remain. It does not help the government or the National Assembly.

- If this is institutionalized, wouldn’t it be difficult for members serving more than four terms to remain in the National Assembly?

▲ Even without such a system, there are not many four-term members. If the system is established, first, it will filter out how many people will want to return to politics after taking a break following three terms, and how many have a strong sense of mission in politics. Those who truly have a sense of mission and say, 'After studying and refining myself for four more years, I will build a proper party as a four-term member,' or 'I will revive parliamentary democracy properly,' will have opportunities again. Even if only one well-prepared person comes forward, I believe it will contribute to political development.

- Returning after a four-year break as a former incumbent, is it really different?

▲ From experience, I was exhausted at the end of my second term. I had doubts. Although my district gave me good evaluations such as 'worked hard' and 'achieved a lot,' I wondered what I had really done in the past eight years. I worked very hard, but there was nothing to show for it. If nominated, I would likely become a three-term member, then chair a standing committee, and possibly challenge for senior party positions or floor leader. But then, what would be different from the past eight years? After spending another four years exhausted like that, would I still have the energy to continue in politics? I saw nothing. I consider myself a prepared person. I decided to enter politics in my third year of university and worked as a political aide for 15 years before becoming a member of the National Assembly. My political motivation was clear, and I had all the values, directions, goals, and specific missions fulfilled, but after eight years, I was depleted.

- Will the Innovation Committee strongly address the ban on serving more than three consecutive terms?

▲ Personally, I think so. Since there has been no detailed discussion yet, I am not sure about the thoughts of other committee members, but it will not be easy. First, we need to secure consensus within the Innovation Committee, and if that is achieved, we will engage in dialogue with other stakeholders. Depending on the content, they may agree or not.

Interview by Choi Il-kwon, Political Chief