[Inside Chodong] The Conditions for Cooperation

Determined to Recruit Conservative Figures, Facing Opposition from Both Ruling and Opposition Parties
A Path Toward Integration Beyond Mere Personnel Appointments Needed

The nomination of Lee Hyehoon as Minister of Planning and Budget has sparked heated debate in the political arena. Ahead of the National Assembly confirmation hearing, numerous allegations have been raised, leading to even self-deprecating remarks during the hearing such as, "I never expected to make it this far." In the past, when controversies escalated beyond control, it was customary to resolve the situation through a so-called "voluntary resignation." This time, however, both the Blue House and the ruling party seem determined to stand their ground.

Candidate Lee is neither a key contributor to the president’s election victory nor a close associate with any special ties. In fact, she is someone with whom finding common ground has been difficult. However, if we look back a bit, it becomes clear that President Lee Jaemyung has consistently made efforts to recruit conservative figures since his presidential campaign days. There were aggressive recruitment moves involving figures such as former Environment Minister Yoon Yeojoon, Assemblyman Kim Sangwook, and former Assembly members Kim Yongnam and Heo Euna. Within the campaign, bringing in conservative figures was treated as a major achievement, and efforts to recruit them became competitive. Amid this trend, there were even rumors about recruiting former Assemblyman Yoo Seungmin and former Daegu Mayor Hong Joonpyo.

At the time, these recruitment efforts were seen merely as a vote-winning strategy to attract more centrist voters. However, the appointment of Candidate Lee demonstrates that such recruitment goes beyond simple election tactics. Appointing a conservative figure as the first head of the Ministry of Planning and Budget, responsible for setting mid- to long-term national development strategies and managing the country's finances, confirmed the president's "determination," surpassing mere gestures of political balance or election engineering.

However, as seen throughout the process, such efforts are difficult to gain recognition. The conservative camp criticized the move, calling it "looting an empty house" or "poaching a single person." Supporters and the progressive camp were also displeased. There was strong skepticism not only about Candidate Lee's actions and statements after the martial law, but also about whether, as a "sound fiscal conservative," she could align with the government's expansionary fiscal policy. Furthermore, as allegations such as verbal abuse of aides and fraudulent housing applications surfaced regarding Candidate Lee, the situation moved further away from cooperation or unity. A concerning aspect is whether these controversies are causing the Lee Jaemyung administration's efforts at integration to regress. Whether it is due to the sincerity of the appointing authority, the polarization of politics, or opposition from the support base, there is a question of whether these efforts are faltering in the face of real-world obstacles.

What is clear is that the will for integration cannot be acknowledged by recruiting just one or two figures. The answer may lie in the difference between "physical bonding" and "chemical bonding," concepts we learned in science class. Physical bonding refers to a connection that can return to its original state at any time if the grip is released; the structure of the molecule remains unchanged before and after the bond.

In contrast, chemical bonding is a method in which the structure of the molecule breaks and a new substance is formed. The reason the current administration's sincerity is not being respected may be that it remains at the stage of seeking physical bonding. The approach that needs to be pursued should go beyond physical bonding achieved through personnel composition and move toward "chemical bonding" that transforms itself.

If efforts toward integration and cooperation are genuine, it is necessary to demonstrate more than just a simple combination of people. Changes in demographics, technology, and the external environment are forcing our society to undertake major structural reforms and make difficult choices. Whether the administration can not only seek compromise with others but also transform its own composition in the face of such challenges will determine whether it can truly become "the president for all."