[Reporter’s Notebook] Democratic Party’s ‘Live Broadcast’ Debate Was Refreshing

Over Two and a Half Hours of Unfiltered Debate Broadcast Live
Passionate Atmosphere Praised, but Content Leaves Questions
Hoping for a Political Culture of Open Lawmaker Discourse

The Democratic Party of Korea has embarked on finding a solution to the politically sensitive issue of the financial investment income tax (Geumtu Tax) through an 'intra-party debate'.

When discussions first emerged in early last month, the party leadership was leaning towards implementing the tax next year. After the August 18 nationwide party members' convention and the reappointment of Jin Seong-jun, the policy committee chairman who supports the tax, under leader Lee Jae-myung, the pro-implementation stance solidified further. However, as the intra-party debate scheduled for the 29th approached, voices advocating for a delay began to surface. Some top committee members joined the sole proponent of postponement, Representative Lee So-young, shifting the atmosphere.

On the day of the debate, the 24th, the venue was livelier than expected. Protesters holding placards reading "Implement without delay" gathered in front of the debate hall, and individual investors shouted "Abolish it immediately." Over 100 journalists and aides attended as observers, and about 90 lawmakers who were not debaters also gathered. The debate, which lasted over two and a half hours, was broadcast live on YouTube. Before the debate began, a subtle tension was felt as lawmakers greeted each other. Representative Kim Nam-geun, from the implementation team, joked about the seating arrangement, noticing more lawmakers sitting on the postponement side, asking, "Did the observing lawmakers deliberately split into teams?"

The debate atmosphere was intense. During the team strategy session, when one observing lawmaker shared opinions with the debating team, the opposing team protested, saying, "You shouldn't be over there; we only have five members."

While the debate succeeded in maintaining a vigorous yet non-confrontational atmosphere, the content was somewhat disappointing. It is questionable whether the debate on the Geumtu Tax needed to be framed as a 'rival party struggle' even within the party. Throughout the debate, both sides seemed to present arguments aimed more at their internal support bases rather than addressing the core issues of the tax controversy. Representative Kim Seong-hwan unexpectedly invoked "Mrs. Kim Geon-hee" by saying, "If the Geumtu Tax had been implemented, stock manipulation figures like Mrs. Kim Geon-hee might not have existed." Representative Lee So-young criticized the ruling party by stating, "Dismissing the people's voices as excessive fear is an attitude taken by the People Power Party." Although it was a policy discussion, it failed to escape the framework of political conflict.

The active exchange of opinions regardless of age, experience, or political advantage was impressive. Instead of deciding party policy solely based on the leadership's intentions, determining policy direction through debates among lawmakers was refreshing. Now, the Democratic Party only has the process of reaching a consensus to finalize the 'party stance' left. For the debate to gain legitimacy, not only the discussion but also the decision-making process must be democratic. Doing so will naturally dispel suspicions that the debate was merely a 'promised showdown.'