[Insight & Opinion] Law Is Not a Political Game

When Legislative Amendments Become Political Tools,
They Undermine Stability and Cause Social Confusion
Debate the Value of Legal Rigidity Rather Than Its Drawbacks

The Korean political sphere is facing controversy over various legislative amendments led by the majority Democratic Party. While some changes, such as inheritance law revisions, respond to the legitimate demands of the public in line with societal changes, the phenomenon of treating law amendments as mere political tools resembles the unpredictable winds that may shift the solemn constitutional duties entrusted to lawmakers. Excessive frequent changes to laws can undermine legal stability, reduce predictability, and cause social confusion.

The rigidity of law may sometimes feel inconvenient, but it is an important principle that prevents such confusion and ensures long-term stability. The recurring controversies over media laws, prosecutorial powers, and the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) that arise with each regime change clearly demonstrate that if laws are frequently altered according to the political interests of a particular party, the authority of the law itself can be shaken. Although laws may be disadvantageous at certain points, in the long run, this rigidity contributes to maintaining the stability of laws and institutions.

The importance of legal rigidity lies in guaranteeing consistency in national policies. Looking specifically at real estate policy, one of the major economic policies, frequent and abrupt changes in laws and policies with each government transition have often thrown the market into turmoil. During the Moon Jae-in administration, many laws were amended to strengthen real estate regulations, but after the Yoon Seok-yeol administration took office, efforts were made to relax these laws. Such changes lowered market predictability, caused anxiety among the public, and led to economic instability. Conversely, if the law had maintained a consistent direction, the market could have continued healthy growth based on long-term stability.

The two-year postponement of taxation on virtual assets in the Income Tax Act amendment is similarly an extreme political intention, reflecting how lightly the law is regarded. Departing from the principle that taxes are levied where income exists, Korea differs significantly from countries like the United States, where tax systems for virtual asset transactions have been established since 2014. Korea has become a playground for various virtual asset speculations, causing a decline in the nation's standing. The taxation system should emphasize market transparency through financial transaction reporting obligations rather than tax revenue itself.

Moreover, legal rigidity also serves to prevent certain forces from abusing the law for short-term gains. If a party holding a majority of seats could easily change laws as they wish, it would ultimately undermine the foundation of the rule of law. For example, in 2020, the Democratic Party amended the CIO law to allow the appointment of the chief without opposition party agreement, raising ongoing concerns about procedural legitimacy and political neutrality. Issues related to warrant execution directives following adjustments to investigative authority between prosecutors and police have now become burdens on the public amid President Yoon’s impeachment phase. If a particular party repeatedly changes laws to suit its interests, a vicious cycle of re-amendments with each regime change is inevitable. This undermines the fairness and consistency that laws must uphold in a democratic society.

Legal rigidity prevents laws from degenerating into mere political tools and preserves long-term social consensus. In a democratic society, laws should not exist for the benefit of a specific party or political faction but must protect the rights of all citizens and maintain a stable social order.

Ultimately, the essence of the legal system lies in long-term stability and reliability. Rather than outright rejecting legal rigidity, a deep reflection on the values it protects is necessary. This is an essential element for maintaining democracy and the rule of law and a matter that must be considered for our society to advance toward a more mature democracy.

Kim Gyu-il, Professor at Michigan State University