[Inside Chodong] One Year After the Power Shift: Where the Democratic Party Must Stand

All Democratic Party Bills Pushed Through in the Past Year Have Failed
The Opposition Must Establish Its Role
By Fighting and Seeking Compromise Simultaneously

Since last year's presidential election, the political sphere has been filled with mockery regarding the power shift between the ruling and opposition parties. The question has been when the People Power Party and the Democratic Party can adapt to their new roles. The Democratic Party, having become the major opposition party, has attempted to lead national affairs, while the People Power Party, now the ruling party from a minority opposition, has been passive in inter-party negotiations. Although there were some achievements such as the budget approval and the agreement on the Itaewon national investigation, the ruling and opposition parties spent every day in conflict and confrontation.

Even common sense collapsed in the face of factional logic. It was a year in which efforts for compromise disappeared. In particular, the ruling party often overturned barely reached agreements or ignored dialogue with the opposition, overwhelmed by their number of seats. The Democratic Party did not consider ‘legislative dominance’ against such a ruling party disgraceful. As a result, mechanisms left as the last bastion of negotiation between the ruling and opposition parties, such as the Agenda Coordination Committee and the Fast Track system under the National Assembly Advancement Act, were frequently undermined by tactics like disguised party defections. The Democratic Party did not hesitate to push through actions based on their seat majority.

Did the world change according to the Democratic Party’s wishes? The so-called 'Prosecutorial Investigation Authority Transfer Act (검수완박법, the Act on Adjustment of Investigation Authority between the Prosecutor's Office and Police)' that limited the prosecution’s investigative authority was effectively nullified by the Ministry of Justice’s enforcement decree, and the Grain Management Act, which was said to be a decisive measure to save farmers, was rejected by the president’s veto power. Despite severe political and social conflicts, the outcomes were ultimately only wounds.

Is this why the Democratic Party recently appears to be struggling over the Jeonse Fraud Special Act, a hot topic in the political arena? Along with the Justice Party, the Democratic Party proposed measures focused on expanding the scope of victims, increasing compensation, and purchasing deposit return claims to help victims of Jeonse fraud. The government and ruling party sympathized with the intent to help victims but showed signs of wanting to limit the scope and scale of relief due to concerns over fiscal burden and future precedents.

In response, Kim Seong-ju, the Democratic Party’s Senior Deputy Floor Leader for Policy, lamented, "(The Jeonse Fraud Special Act) is a representative urgent livelihood law, but there is concern about how long it will remain trapped under the name of consensus, blocked by opposition from the government and ruling party." He had no response to criticism that while the Democratic Party pushed through bills like the Prosecutorial Investigation Authority Transfer Act, it hesitated on the Jeonse Fraud Special Act, an urgent livelihood law amid a surge in suicides, due to opposition from the government and ruling party.

So, will the Democratic Party choose to push the bill through again this time? Inside and outside the party, the prevailing view is that the Jeonse Fraud Special Act will not be forcibly passed. The reason is that even if the law is enacted, it will not provide practical help to victims unless the government takes action. Even if the president does not exercise the veto, without active involvement from the government, which holds budgetary and administrative authority, and public institutions such as the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (LH), victims cannot be helped even if the law is amended. Although unsatisfactory, the logic is that cooperation from the government and ruling party is essential to create effective measures.

This leads to the question of what meaning the Democratic Party’s unilateral dominance has held so far. Putting aside the textbook notion that compromise and cooperation are the essence of politics, ultimately, from the perspective that politics must produce results, the forced passage of bills over the past year ended in failure. As both the largest party and the opposition, the Democratic Party must attempt to establish its position as the opposition based on reflection over the past year. While it must fight when necessary, it also needs the wisdom to seek compromise. The power the Democratic Party currently holds only allows it to make laws and present them outside the National Assembly. Recognizing its limits will reveal the Democratic Party’s path. The world does not change simply by insisting on one’s own righteousness.