What Happens to Lawmakers and Assets if a Party is Dissolved?... Ruling and Opposition Exchange Threats over the Unconstitutional Party Dissolution System [News Explanation]

First Attempt at Party Dissolution During the Rhee Syngman Administration
In the Past, Governments Dissolved Parties to Suppress Opposition
Loss of Parliamentary Seats and Reversion of Assets to the State
Party Dissolution Systems Exist in Germany and Spain, but Not in the US or UK

Editor's Note'Seolcham' is a newly coined term meaning to refer to explanations for more detailed information. In [News Seolcham], we aim to pinpoint parts of the news that require fact-checking or further explanation and provide more detailed descriptions.

Recently, in the political arena, both ruling and opposition parties have accused each other of "constitutional violations due to legislative rampage" and "advocating rebellion," mentioning the possibility of filing a constitutional court petition to dissolve unconstitutional parties. While the dissolution of the Unified Progressive Party is well-known, it was only the first dissolution decision by a court ruling. In modern Korean history, precedents of forced party dissolutions by the government to suppress political opposition have existed much earlier. These are cases where parties were forcibly dissolved by the government to suppress political opposition forces.

The first party dissolution occurred during the Rhee Syngman administration. Former Minister of Agriculture and Forestry Jo Bong-am, an independence activist, was a political rival of former President Rhee Syngman. Seeing Jo, who had popular support, as a threat to the ruling Liberal Party, the Rhee administration arrested him on espionage charges and forcibly dissolved the Progressive Party he founded in 1958 on charges including violations of the National Security Act. Over 50 years later, in January 2011, the Supreme Court acquitted Jo through a retrial and effectively acknowledged that his trial was political persecution.

Subsequently, party dissolutions frequently occurred under military regimes. After the May 16 military coup in 1961, President Park Chung-hee, who seized power, announced a complete ban on party activities and dissolved the National Assembly under the pretext of national reconstruction. Although parties such as the Liberal Party and Democratic Party existing at the time did not undergo formal dissolution procedures, their political activities were banned, effectively amounting to party control and dissolution. In October 1972, President Park again declared nationwide martial law and dissolved the National Assembly and political parties. In 1980, the new military regime under Chun Doo-hwan expanded martial law nationwide, completely banning National Assembly and party activities, resulting in the forced dissolution of parties such as the Democratic Republican Party and New Democratic Party.

The Unified Progressive Party was the first unconstitutional party case in constitutional history by the Constitutional Court. In December 2014, the Constitutional Court ruled by an 8 to 1 majority that the Unified Progressive Party followed a North Korean-style socialist revolutionary line and threatened the free democratic basic order, ordering its dissolution. The decisive trigger was the rebellion conspiracy case involving former lawmaker Lee Seok-ki.

This is based on Article 8, Paragraph 4 of the Constitution concerning political parties, which states, "When the purpose or activities of a political party violate the democratic basic order, the government may file a petition for dissolution with the Constitutional Court, and the party shall be dissolved by the judgment of the Constitutional Court."

When a party is dissolved, its affiliated lawmakers lose their seats. At that time, the Constitutional Court decided to disqualify five Progressive Party lawmakers, including former lawmaker Lee, Kim Mi-hee, Kim Jae-yeon, Oh Byung-yoon, and Lee Sang-gyu. There is no provision that all affiliated lawmakers lose their qualifications when a party is dissolved under the unconstitutional party dissolution system. Accordingly, in 2015, five former Progressive Party lawmakers, including Kim Mi-hee, filed a lawsuit to confirm their status as members of the National Assembly, claiming that the Constitutional Court arbitrarily interpreted the law to strip them of their seats. However, the court ruled that "the final authority lies with the Constitutional Court," deeming the Constitutional Court's decision to disqualify the lawmakers as legitimate.

The remaining assets of a dissolved party revert to the national treasury. The Unified Progressive Party had received about 16.3 billion KRW in state subsidies over three years since its founding and was scheduled to return its remaining assets to the treasury. However, the Central Election Commission at the time reviewed the party's financial reports and stated that considering uncollectible receivables and liquidation costs, the actual remaining assets of approximately 260 million KRW were effectively nonexistent. In other words, there were practically no assets to recover for the treasury.

The headquarters of the Unified Progressive Party, which was dissolved by the Constitutional Court in 2014. Photo by Asia Economy DB

Some major foreign countries also have party dissolution systems. Article 21 of the German Basic Law stipulates that parties that threaten the democratic basic order may be dissolved by a ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court. In fact, the Socialist Reich Party (SRP), founded mainly by former Nazi Party members and Hitler Youth, was dissolved by the Federal Constitutional Court in 1952. The German Communist Party (KPD) was also dissolved in 1956.

Spain also allows party dissolution by court decision in cases of anti-constitutional activities. In 2003, the party Batasuna, known to be linked to the radical armed group ETA (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna), which advocated for independence in the Basque region, was dissolved.

On the other hand, the United States does not have such a system. This is because the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution strongly guarantees freedom of expression and political activity. The United Kingdom also does not have a system where the state arbitrarily dissolves political parties.