[Insight & Opinion] Electoral Reform: Abolishing the Symbol Order System Is Key

[Asia Economy] The president has sparked controversy by mentioning the reform of the multi-member constituency system at the beginning of the new year. The Speaker of the National Assembly has also stated that electoral reform must be achieved by April, one year before the next general election. A special committee has already been formed in the National Assembly to address political reforms, including the electoral system. There is unanimous agreement on the need for political reform, including the electoral system. However, the likelihood and direction of actual reform remain unclear. The key issue is overcoming the vested interests of established political parties and the privileged duopoly of the two major parties. The reason electoral reform has always ended in failure is that it has not surpassed the vested interests of incumbent lawmakers. In particular, reforming the electoral system, which involves reducing or changing constituencies, has been difficult. Since democratization, electoral reform has been repeatedly discussed, but the single-member district system and the number of constituencies have not changed significantly. The current ‘semi-proportional’ electoral system, which was reformed with calls to strengthen proportional representation, is a distorted system created because it could not overcome the vested interests of existing constituencies and the two major parties. The problem of political vested interests largely stems from the leadership of the president who proposed the electoral reform and the current presidential system, but that is a separate issue.

Another reason why prospects for institutional reform are unclear is that it is difficult to expect reform effects unless measures to dismantle the current duopoly of the two major parties are accompanied. As a result, the recently proposed alternative of a multi-member constituency system with 2 to 4 members has also become controversial. Every system has its pros and cons and emphasizes different points, but if the privileged duopoly system of the two major parties is not dismantled, it is difficult to expect advantages even if the system is reformed into a multi-member constituency system. The multi-member constituency system has already been adopted in our local elections, so we can see its reality. The two major parties are sweeping the top positions, even adding additional symbols such as ㉮, ㉯, and ㉰ to secure the front spots. Occasionally, a vested third force benefits from niche advantages. Whether party nominations are limited to one candidate or the symbol order system is fundamentally abolished and replaced with a lottery system, only then can the effects of the multi-member constituency system be expected. Ultimately, this too is a matter of whether vested interests can be overcome.

The alternative of expanding proportional representation is similar. If parties become detached from public sentiment, proportional representation can further distort national representation. Proportional representation, introduced as a channel for functional representation and expert recruitment, has sometimes been used as a political turf for party elites. Proportional representation can be the closest to reflecting public sentiment. However, it must be accompanied by party democracy that mediates it.

In fact, the core system driving polarized factional politics is not the electoral district system but the symbol order system stipulated in Article 150 of the Public Official Election Act, which protects the duopoly of the two major parties. The order of symbols is assigned according to the size of the party, placing the party ahead of the candidate. In National Assembly elections, especially local elections, the symbols 1 and 2 determine the outcome. As a result, loyalty is given more to party power than to public sentiment. Intra-party democracy does not function. This is clearly seen in both the People Power Party and the Democratic Party of Korea. Parties that lose public trust are not ousted, and new alternatives do not emerge; the two major forces simply exchange power.

The symbol order system is an unfair privileged system that must be corrected before choosing any institutional reform. Similar but weaker systems in other countries have been ruled unconstitutional. Most use a lottery system. Just as Park Chung-hee, the candidate of the ruling Democratic Republican Party, was elected with symbol number 6 in the 1967 presidential election, we once used a lottery system. It should be changed to a lottery system combined with a rotational arrangement method, as in the current superintendent of education elections. Then, even under the single-member district system, the harms of the duopoly can be resolved, and reform effects can be expected in the case of a multi-member constituency system.

Kim Manheum, Chair Professor at Hansung University, Former Director of the National Assembly Legislative Research Office