"Hitting 'Dad's Chance' Again and Again... Only Hypocrisy Repeats as Roles Switch [For Public Officials, Competence Comes First]"

Confirmation Hearings Used as a Tool for Political Leverage
Ruling Party Focuses on Defense with Double Standards
Opposition Concentrates on Discrediting Nominees

"Prepared and Determined" vs. "We Won't Back Down"

Every time a confirmation hearing for high-ranking government officials is held, the political arena descends into a mudslinging battle between the ruling and opposition parties. The opposition party focuses all its efforts on bringing down the nominee by highlighting various flaws. In response, the government and ruling party often push ahead with appointments regardless of the hearing's outcome. This has led to criticism that confirmation hearings have lost their original purpose of vetting candidates and have instead become a tool for political hegemony.

The opposition party plays the role of "attacker" during confirmation hearings. Ideally, the goal should be to scrutinize the nominee's qualifications and abilities, but reality is different. Even if their vetting is criticized as a "witch hunt," the opposition concentrates its resources on causing the nominee to withdraw. The downfall of a major public office nominee is seen as a personnel failure for the president and can weaken the administration's momentum. A prime example is the Park Geun-hye administration, where the consecutive withdrawals of Prime Minister nominees Ahn Daehee and Moon Changgeuk led to a decline in the president's approval ratings.

Even if a nominee does not end up withdrawing, attempts to tarnish their reputation leave political scars on the ruling party. If an appointment pushed through against opposition objections fails to produce results or makes mistakes, the very attempt to force the appointment becomes a point of attack. For the opposition, whose goal is to change the administration, confirmation hearings are a political opportunity.

During the Yoon Suk-yeol administration, the Democratic Party of Korea labeled the initial cabinet appointments as a "personnel disaster" and launched an all-out offensive. Han Ducksoo, a Prime Minister nominee from the Honam region who had served in key public posts under the Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun administrations, was no exception to the criticism.

This was based on the calculation that the confirmation hearing could serve as a turning point. At a time when the party was on the defensive politically due to the forced passage of the "Prosecution Investigation Authority Complete Deprivation" bill, the hearing was seen as a chance to regain the initiative. Furthermore, it was also part of a strategy to change the unfavorable landscape ahead of the 8th nationwide local elections on June 1, 2022.

Political commentator Park Sangbyung said, "In a camp confrontation, even if your own party does not do well, you gain an advantage if the opposing party collapses," adding, "They see creating cracks in the rival party through confirmation hearings as an achievement in itself."

The higher the profile of the government official, the more intense the attacks become. A representative example is the confirmation hearing for Cho Kuk, the Minister of Justice nominee during the Moon Jae-in administration. The Liberty Korea Party, predecessor of the People Power Party, accused Cho of being "like a rotten onion with endless layers of suspicion." They even called for a special prosecutor and a parliamentary investigation into Cho.

The ruling party assumes the role of "defender." They must protect the nominee selected by the president as much as possible. This is because a successful administration and the potential for re-election require the president to assemble the desired cabinet. During the Moon Jae-in administration, the Democratic Party made every effort to defend Cho Kuk. They believed that if Cho withdrew, it could deal a fatal blow to the administration's moral standing. On the eve of the hearing, they even prepared a 55-page Q&A document and a 7-page report on Cho's children's university admissions, effectively acting as his spokespersons.

If the ruling party's defensive strategy fails, the government resorts to a standoff. This is driven by the political motive of "not backing down to the opposition." Former President Yoon Suk-yeol even threatened to run the new administration without a Prime Minister if Han Ducksoo's confirmation was rejected by the National Assembly. The appointments of 29 high-ranking officials, including Han Ducksoo, Han Donghoon (then Minister of Justice nominee), and Kim Yonghyun (then Minister of National Defense nominee), were pushed through despite opposition objections for this reason.

When the government changes, only the roles are reversed, but the situation remains the same. The ruling and opposition parties simply switch positions, and "if I do it, it's romance; if others do it, it's an affair" style confirmation hearings are repeated. During the Yoon Suk-yeol administration, the Democratic Party focused on allegations of "dad's chance" regarding the medical school transfer process of Health and Welfare Minister nominee Chung Ho-young's children. This was similar to how the Liberty Korea Party targeted Cho Kuk during the Moon Jae-in administration.

Chae Jinwon, professor at Kyung Hee University's Public Governance Research Institute, suggested, "To break away from negative campaigning, personnel with moral issues should be excluded from the start," but also emphasized, "It is necessary to separate the vetting of a nominee's morality from the vetting of their policy during confirmation hearings."