[Inside Chodong] National Assembly Audit Receives an F Grade

The National Assembly Audit Exposed as a Battleground for Shorts Content

This year's National Assembly audit has once again been recorded as the worst in history. The NGO National Assembly Audit Monitoring Group gave this year's audit a failing grade, labeling it a "poor National Assembly audit" and assigning it an "F grade."

Initially, in preparing for this year's audit, we planned a section called "Audit Hot Figures" to feature the activities of audit committee members (National Assembly members), witnesses, and reference persons in our coverage. The intention was to introduce and highlight those who point out problems in our society and seek institutional improvements.

However, over the past three weeks of the audit process, this plan repeatedly ran into obstacles. Reporters covering the event found themselves struggling not over whom to select among many notable figures, but rather over the need to choose anyone at all. Even taking into account the sudden imposition of emergency martial law and the impeachment of the president, which led to shifts between the ruling and opposition parties, this year's audit was a series of irrational events. Instead of respect, only contempt and disparagement could be seen, as members mocked each other's appearance, speech, and names.

Why did this year's audit deteriorate to such an extent? While the ongoing insurrection investigation and the possibility of extreme outcomes such as the dissolution of political parties depending on the results are contributing factors, another major reason is that fandom politics has firmly established itself as the driving force of Korean politics.

With the road now paved for the 9th nationwide local elections scheduled for June 3 next year, extreme confrontation has only intensified. This is closely related to political calculations aimed at winning party primaries. The belief that candidates favored by hardline supporters are more likely to win primaries has influenced this trend. As a result, the audit has devolved into a contest for producing "shorts" content filled with inflammatory remarks.

Political parties that champion party member sovereignty must reflect at this point. The fundamental question is whether politicians who are loved by party members, especially hardline supporters, are truly competitive politicians. In public opinion polls regarding metropolitan mayoral races ahead of next year's local elections, a notable trend is the divergence between party support and candidate support. For example, in Seoul, while the Democratic Party of Korea enjoys strong support, in hypothetical matchups between candidates, the incumbent Seoul Mayor Oh Sehoon of the People Power Party remains highly competitive. This demonstrates that, when it comes to local government heads, voters may make choices more akin to consumer purchasing decisions rather than based on political ideology or values.

Moreover, there is no guarantee that politicians who demonstrate competitiveness in a combative political arena will provide stable governance. Local politics is also likely to be led in an aggressive, confrontational, and combative manner. If voter fatigue with local politics increases, the chances of re-election or a third term decrease. The general election is inevitably more important than the primary, and if a party seeks to regain power afterward, the current political playbook must change. Candidate competitiveness should be evaluated based on performance in the general election and governance capability.

Politicians obsessed with "shorts" must also reconsider their approach. Voters who encounter "shorts" through algorithms tend to consume media in ways that reinforce their existing views rather than encourage flexible thinking. This structure only manages the core supporters, often referred to as the "base." To persuade moderate or differently minded voters, a more systematic persuasion strategy is required. Merely scolding or entertaining cannot convince the so-called "wild rabbits," a political term for swing voters who are the opposite of the core base.