[Insight & Opinion] The Futility of Cooperation Theory in a 1.5-Party System and Strategies for Democracy

Powerless Opposition Amid Ruling Party's Unchecked Dominance
Reforming Party Politics Toward a Multiparty System

The call for cooperation is constant. Cooperation stands in contrast to self-righteousness, unilateralism, and hegemony, and aligns with the principles of democracy. It has also been emphasized as an alternative direction to counter unproductive political strife and governmental dysfunction. The recurring discourse on cooperation simultaneously highlights both the necessity for cooperation and the reality of its absence.

President Lee Jaemyung expressed his commitment to cooperation in his inaugural address, stating, "I will restore communication and dialogue based on the values of coexistence and integration, and revive politics of concession and compromise." Even after his inauguration, he has continued to meet with delegations from each party in the National Assembly over lunch, requesting collaboration and reaffirming his intention for cooperation. Of course, in a situation where the antagonistic structure of political camps remains intact, cooperation cannot be achieved by presidential slogans alone.

At present, the opposition party does not have the driving force to lead cooperation. It depends on the ruling party's willingness to embrace and make concessions. The ruling party, having succeeded in taking power, now also holds overwhelming dominance in the National Assembly. The opposition is not only a minority in the legislature, but also finds it difficult to represent public opinion critical of the ruling party. Public support for the opposition has fallen even below its already small number of seats.

Since democratization, parliamentary politics in Korea has been most active during periods when the opposition held a majority in the legislature. Sometimes this led to cooperation, and other times to intense conflict or even impeachment. As is well known, during the previous administration of Yoon Sukyeol, there was also a divided power structure with the opposition holding a majority. In this divided state, rather than cooperation and coexistence, the country experienced a dysfunctional political situation where the opposition dominated the legislature and clashed with the president's vetoes. The administration was replaced after it self-destructed with President Yoon's outrageous emergency martial law.

Currently, our party system is no different from the so-called "1.5-party system" that once described the Liberal Democratic Party's dominance in Japan. If the government and ruling party monopolize power, there are no institutional mechanisms to put on the brakes. Public scrutiny and critical opinion are the last line of defense. On a daily basis, the opposition and the media serve as channels for oversight and criticism. However, the opposition, having lost public trust, has instead become a shield for the administration. For now, the operation of government through cooperation or integration depends entirely on the choices of the ruling power.

Within the Democratic Party, there remains a strong tendency to label the opposition People Power Party as a force of insurrection. They are seen not as partners for cooperation, but as targets for elimination. Even the president, who expresses willingness to cooperate with the opposition, makes it clear that compromise and collusion are different. He has stated that even if agreement cannot be reached, if something is necessary for the people, he may "push it through by force." This is a reasonable statement. However, if a subjective political frame of good and evil is introduced here, cooperation becomes nothing more than a decorative slogan.

Even in extreme confrontational situations, collusion often happens quietly. We have often seen cases where political reform, which must inevitably challenge vested interests in politics, is thwarted or distorted by their agreement. It has been easier to achieve collusive cooperation than to guard against it.

Rather than slogans for cooperation, what is needed is a practical democratic strategy. In a 1.5-party system with no structural drivers for cooperation, the engine of democracy must be revived, at least within the ruling camp, through internal diversity. The key question is whether the Democratic Party, previously criticized for its monolithic tendencies, can change after coming to power. The leadership of President Lee Jaemyung, who was at the center of the unipolar system, still remains central. Party democracy can be sustained only when democratic dynamism within the party is alive.

The fundamental task is to reform party politics, which is currently blocking the democratic public sphere. Immediately, the urgent priority is to reform the opposition party, which, rather than channeling critical opinion, is actually blocking it. Under a 1.5-party system, it is difficult to expect democracy through party politics. Pluralistic, multiparty politics is more in line with party democracy. However, if parties become obstacles to democracy, then the democratic strategy must be designed to go beyond party politics.

Kim Manheum, Former Chief of the National Assembly Research Service