[Reading K-Politics Through Metaphor] Why Do the Ruling and Opposition Parties Fight While the Government Watches?

The Political Science of Standing Committee Seating Arrangements

Editor's NotePoliticians, masters of oratory, often use ‘metaphors’ in their speech. They engage in politics with rhetoric as splendid as that of poets or eloquent speakers. Using the rhetoric employed by such politicians as a starting point, we aim to grasp the flow of real politics, often likened to a ‘living organism.’ In the process, we plan a series revealing the inner workings and bare truths of K-politics.

[Asia Economy Reporter Koo Chae-eun] “But why are we facing off against the other party, while the executive branch just stands by with folded arms in the middle?”

A Democratic Party lawmaker reportedly asked their aide this question, pointing out the strange seating arrangement in the main National Assembly building’s standing committee meeting rooms. The seating is arranged so that the ruling and opposition parties face each other, with the executive branch seated in between.

The National Assembly’s standing committees have a ‘U’-shaped seating structure during audits or plenary meetings. The ruling and opposition parties sit directly opposite each other, with the executive branch seated in the middle. Therefore, when questioning ministers from various departments, lawmakers from either party have to turn their bodies.

In contrast, in many other countries’ parliaments, including the United States, the standing committee seating is often arranged so that lawmakers from both parties sit side by side facing the executive officials.

Form dictates content. This kind of spatial arrangement has often been criticized for increasing wasteful and extreme political disputes. The ruling and opposition parties fiercely argue, confront, and engage in verbal battles. Meanwhile, the executive branch, which should be checked and monitored, just watches with folded hands.

While seating arrangement alone is not the sole cause, it is not uncommon for the legislature to fail to adequately question the executive branch, with lawmakers merely pointing fingers during audits or plenary sessions. The media often frames this as a ‘bland audit with no policy questioning’ or ‘ineffective government oversight, rendering audits useless.’ This creates a vicious cycle that fosters vague political disgust among voters.

This issue was brought up 14 years ago but fizzled out. In 2008, Park Gye-dong, then Secretary-General of the National Assembly, pushed for changing the ‘U’-shaped seating to a layout like that of U.S. standing committees. The rationale was to transform the ‘political confrontation seating’ between ruling and opposition parties into a ‘policy oversight seating’ focused on the executive branch. However, the plan was shelved due to budget issues and quietly dropped.

A senior lawmaker who served as a standing committee secretary in the 20th National Assembly hinted that “compatibility with the counterpart party’s secretary is important” to prevent unnecessary conflicts between parties. When heated verbal battles drag on, the secretaries need to break the flow. He said, “Sometimes, if they argue even louder outside the meeting room, the committee members inside calm down and say, ‘Let’s continue with the next question,’ ending the situation. This can’t be scripted, so the harmony between the two secretaries is crucial.” Hearing this, one might really think lawmakers are staging and acting out fights.

More fundamentally, one might ask why the legislature only fights and fails to check the executive branch, yet nothing changes. Some political experts use the metaphor that the two-party system is like a ‘monopoly corporation.’ Although they growl and appear to fight on the surface, in reality, it is a system that maintains vested interests through ‘monopoly and collusion.’

Looking closely, this is indeed the case. Legislative power is so strong that there is no institution like a Fair Trade Commission in the industrial sector to regulate monopolies. In industry, companies that fail to meet customer demands are eliminated, and startups innovate, creating self-correction and circulation, but politics is different. Even if the ruling and opposition parties fail to perform well or ask policy questions during annual audits, they can still alternate power every term.

The regular session of the National Assembly began on the 1st. The audit schedule is set from October 4th to 24th. This National Assembly and audit are expected to deepen the confrontation between ruling and opposition parties amid a ‘scandal-ridden political situation’ and a ‘bulletproof National Assembly’ structure.

As every year, headlines like ‘Public livelihood issues buried in political strife,’ ‘Half-hearted audit due to party confrontation,’ and ‘Disappearance of policy audits’ may dominate media coverage of this year’s regular session and audit. Voters will need to watch closely with keen eyes.