[Inside Chodong] The Democratic Party Trapped in the 'Lee Rae-kyung Dilemma'

"The US hegemonic forces, who fabricated the self-destruction theory of the Cheonan incident and ruined inter-Korean relations, are now exaggerating the off-course Chinese meteorological balloon as a tremendous ‘national threat’ akin to an alien invasion, and the foolish Korean media are busy echoing this every day."

This is part of a post written on social media (SNS) on February 10 by Lee Rae-kyung, honorary chairman of Other Hundred Years, who was appointed as the Innovation Committee Chair of the Democratic Party of Korea but resigned after just nine hours. It is already disturbing that the ‘Cheonan self-destruction theory’ was mentioned, but he even used the outdated activist term ‘US hegemonic forces.’ If he were just a private figure, posting dozens of such posts on SNS would not be a big issue. There are already many such people who are a nuisance on SNS.

However, the situation is different if he is a figure leading a major opposition party with 168 seats. Does a person who insists on unverified conspiracy theories such as the ‘Cheonan self-destruction theory,’ ‘US origin of COVID-19 theory,’ and ‘President Yoon Seok-yeol’s CIA contact theory’ deserve to serve as the Innovation Committee Chair of a major opposition party?

Furthermore, can an Innovation Committee Chair who is caught up in conspiracy theories really come up with proper innovation strategies? No one in the political world can ignore this issue. Nevertheless, it seems that the Democratic Party has not properly verified his SNS remarks.

Moreover, there appear to be some within the party who think, ‘What’s the big deal about this?’ Jang Kyung-tae, a Supreme Council member, said on MBC radio, "Isn’t it just an expression of a wrong opinion?" and "It’s a personal opinion." Although Lee later corrected his remarks as ‘excessive expressions,’ the ‘Cheonan self-destruction theory’ is clearly a ‘wrong opinion’ and the spread of false information.

Lee’s political orientation is also an obstacle. He is classified as a Kim Geun-tae faction figure, having served as the chairman of the support committee for the late Kim Geun-tae, former standing advisor of the Democratic United Party (the predecessor of the Democratic Party). However, reviewing his SNS, there are several parts that suggest he has expressed support beyond a friendly stance toward Lee Jae-myung, the Democratic Party leader.

In 2019, he even proposed the formation of the ‘National Countermeasure Committee to Protect Gyeonggi Province Governor Lee Jae-myung.’ He brought in pro-Lee Jae-myung figures to innovate the ‘Lee Jae-myung Democratic Party.’ This contrasts with the 2015 Innovation Committee Chair Kim Sang-gon, considered a ‘good precedent’ for the Democratic Party’s innovation body, who was a non-Moon faction (비문) and part of the minority at the time.

As Lee resigned disgracefully, the Democratic Party is fervently searching for a ‘successor,’ but many are already doubtful whether it will be done properly. The perception that the Innovation Committee Chair, who can be granted full authority by the leader, must be from the pro-Lee Jae-myung faction is deeply ingrained in both inside and outside party circles. Former National Assembly Secretary-General Yoo In-tae, first-term Democratic Party lawmaker Lee Tan-hee, seven-term former lawmaker Won Hye-young, and former Prime Minister Kim Boo-kyum have been mentioned as alternatives, but it is uncertain whether they will readily accept the Innovation Committee Chair position.

Let’s assume they are lucky enough to bring in an anti-Lee Jae-myung faction Innovation Committee Chair. What will happen then? It is obvious that there will be controversy over ‘full authority.’ If innovation stalls even slightly, voices will claim that the anti-Lee Jae-myung Innovation Committee Chair was not given full authority properly, which will lead to factional conflicts again. It is a vicious cycle. The cost of putting the first button of innovation on wrong is bound to return as a bitter dilemma. Although the leader said, "I will take unlimited responsibility," why does it seem more likely that the vicious cycle will repeat infinitely?