[Magic Number 90%]⑪ "The Privilege of National Assembly Members' 'Self-Reform' Is a Contradiction"... Expanding the Number of Assembly Members Is 'Out of the Question'

South Korean Lawmakers Represent 170,000 Citizens... Both Proportionality and Representativeness Are Lacking
8 out of 10 Oppose Increasing the Number of Seats... Privilege Reform Must Come First
Lawmakers' Participation in Privilege Reform Is Contradictory... "Semi-Illegal"

'170,000 vs 30,000'

This is the number of citizens represented by one member of the National Assembly. Which side can better reflect and represent the voice of the people?

In the Republic of Korea, one member of the National Assembly represents 170,000 citizens. In contrast, in countries like Sweden and Denmark, one member represents 30,000 citizens. This is why there is an opinion that increasing the number of National Assembly members in terms of 'representativeness' and 'proportionality' can help overcome a sense of privilege.

Recently, in the political sphere, there have been calls for electoral system reform along with increasing the total number of members and proportional seats. To expand proportionality, a regional proportional representation system is necessary, and to introduce this, the number of seats inevitably has to increase, but public opinion is negative. Experts explain that since trust in politics and politicians has already plummeted, any proposal to increase the number of National Assembly members, who have become 'public enemies,' is unlikely to be welcomed, regardless of the justification. Therefore, the fundamental aspect of 'political reform' is 'building trust,' and efforts to overcome the phenomenon of 'political disgust' should be prioritized, they advised.

The resolution on voluntary reporting and investigation of virtual assets by members of the National Assembly is being passed at the plenary session held at the National Assembly on the 25th. Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

Number of members: In Korea, 1 member per 170,000 people; in Sweden and Denmark, 1 member per 30,000 people

According to the '2022 Comparative Table of Electoral Systems by Country' published by the National Election Commission Election Training Institute, considering South Korea's population (51.33 million), one National Assembly member represents about 170,000 citizens. Among OECD countries with populations similar to Korea, the UK (68.49 million) has 1,450 members, representing 50,000 citizens per member; France (65.58 million) represents 70,000 per member; and Italy (60.26 million) about 100,000 per member.

Especially, Nordic countries have even greater 'representativeness' of their members. Sweden, with a population of 10.21 million, has 349 members, more than Korea's 300, representing 30,000 citizens per member. Denmark also has 179 members representing 5.83 million citizens, fulfilling the role of representing 30,000 citizens per member.

Countries with more citizens per member than Korea are only the United States (630,000 per member), Mexico (210,000), and Japan (180,000).

The claim that 'there are too many National Assembly members in Korea' is therefore inaccurate. The reason why there is an argument that the number of members should rather be increased to enhance representativeness is clear.

Public opposes 'expansion of National Assembly members'... 'Restoring political trust' should come first

However, public opinion is quite the opposite. According to a survey commissioned by Asia Economy to Realmeter (conducted on the 5th-6th of last month with 1,002 voters aged 18 and over, with a sampling error of ±3.1% at 95% confidence level), only 18.4% supported increasing the number of members, while 8 out of 10 people (79.0%) opposed it. (Strongly oppose 56.6%, somewhat oppose 22.4%)

By age group, those in their 50s and 60s showed over 80% opposition to increasing the number of members, and even among those in their 20s and 30s, opposition (74.2% and 74.4%) was higher than support (22.9% and 20.4%). Although the 40s age group showed a slightly higher support rate at 26.2%, opposition was still high at 69.0%, showing no significant difference.

Negative public opinion toward increasing the number of members was consistent across ideological lines. Over 80% of respondents with conservative and moderate tendencies opposed the increase, and 69.1% of progressive respondents also opposed it. By gender, 78.5% of men and 79.6% of women opposed it.

Why is there such widespread opposition to 'increasing the number of members' regardless of age, gender, or ideology?

Experts agree that in 'political reform,' the important point is not 'system reform' such as adjusting the number of members, but rather resolving distrust of politicians through 'privilege reform.'

Political reform... It is self-contradictory for the 'reform targets'?National Assembly members?to lead the reform

Professor Choi Yeon-hyeok, a political science professor at Linnaeus University in Sweden and director of the Stockholm Scandinavian Policy Institute (SCIPS), pointed out in an interview at the SIPS office that "reform must be based on sufficient public consultation and national support," and "it is unconstitutional for stakeholders themselves to amend laws related to themselves." It is contradictory for those who hold privileges to lead institutional reforms concerning their own privileges.

Professor Choi, who moved to Sweden in 1988, earned a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Gothenburg, and has studied Nordic politics and democracy for over 30 years, is considered the top authority in Korea on Swedish politics and welfare systems. As director of the Stockholm think tank SCIPS, he serves as a bridge between Korea and Sweden. He has also advised the Korean government delegation, including Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who visited Sweden this year to seek solutions to low birth rates. His books include 'The Future We Must Meet,' 'How Good Countries Are Made,' and recently 'The Sweden Paradox,' introducing Sweden's political and welfare systems to Korea.

Photo by Choi Yeon-hyeok, professor of political science at Linnaeus University in Sweden and director of the Stockholm Scandinavia Policy Institute (SCIPS), explaining Sweden's political and welfare systems at the SCIPS office.

Professor Choi explained, "Sweden reformed its electoral system in the 1990s (extending the term of members from 3 to 4 years), but discussions on institutional reform and election cycles began in the 1980s."

He added, "It takes more than five years just to gather national consensus." To make the public understand electoral reform, politicians must first relinquish their privileges, allow sufficient time for public consultation, and engage in thorough discussions to gain sincerity.

He mentioned Sweden's 'State Official Reports (SOU) system,' explaining, "When making laws, Sweden conducts investigations through SOU for one to two years, which is the core of democracy. It is based on sufficient public consultation and national support, analyzing not only domestic situations but also various overseas cases." He continued, "Finally, there is a 'Remiss' procedure for one more round of final public consultation," emphasizing, "Because laws are made this way in Sweden, it is impossible for members of the National Assembly to hastily draft laws."

Of course, there is no 'populism' policy like in Korea. He said, "Populism occurs when a party promises the public enormous things and receives votes in return. In the process of making laws through long consultation and bipartisan agreement, populist policies cannot emerge." Politics is about building a 'political trust society' through a series of processes where even a single bill is debated and deliberated for ten years rather than mere 'political strife'.

Relinquishing vested interests and improving 'youth politics' that caused disappointment

For political reform to gain public support, it is analyzed that the relinquishment of vested interests by established politicians must come first to overcome 'political distrust' and move forward anew. This voice came from the younger generation. Lee Dong-su, leader of the youth political crew, emphasized, "While talking about political reform and changing the electoral system, the important thing is for incumbent members and established parties to relinquish their vested interests."

Lee said, "The core of power reform lies in how 'money' and 'people' are distributed." He pointed out, "For example, in Korea, each member's office has 8 to 9 personal aides. What is needed are aides who handle policies, not so many aides for the member's work. The number of aides for National Assembly members should be reduced first." He also added, "Party subsidies, which are allocated mainly to the two major parties, should be distributed without discrimination." (Reference, [Magic Number 90%]⑦ "National Assembly members are citizen representatives, not elites... What does 'multiple terms and age' matter?")

He also pointed out that disappointment in 'youth politics,' especially among the younger generation, has further fueled political distrust. Lee said, "When someone suddenly becomes a 'youth politician' just because they are young without being prepared, their authority is not recognized." He stressed, "For youth politics to gain authority, systematic nurturing is important." He added, "Since there is no system to become a National Assembly member in Korea, getting nominated is the most important thing. This is why factionalism is considered more than ability in domestic politics," emphasizing, "There needs to be incentives for capable people to enter politics."

<>