[EAI General Election Dialogue]

The East Asia Institute (EAI) held a general election dialogue to examine the structural aspects of Korean democracy and politics following the 21st general election and to forecast the future of Korean politics. The dialogue was moderated by EAI President Son Yeol and featured Professor Kang Won-taek of Seoul National University and Professor Choi Tae-wook of the Graduate School of International Studies, Hallym University. The discussion covered the impact of COVID-19 on the election, polarization in Korean politics, the deepening of confrontational politics due to the absence of a viable third force, the role of civil society, changes in Korea's ideological and generational landscape through the election, and future reform agendas and prospects.

• Date: April 20, 2020 (Monday), 18:00–21:00
• Location: EAI Conference Room
• Participants: Kang Won-taek (Professor, Seoul National University), Choi Tae-wook (Professor, Graduate School of International Studies, Hallym University), Son Yeol (President, EAI)

※ The following is an excerpt from the dialogue transcript.

■ Moderator Son Yeol:(...) The two major parties engaged in extreme confrontation throughout the 20th National Assembly, and this confrontation extended to Gwanghwamun and Seocho-dong. During the election campaign, both parties engaged in mudslinging without policy, and by introducing a semi-proportional representation system, they competitively created satellite parties, bringing international disgrace upon themselves. Votes were divided between the two major parties, resulting in the third party barely maintaining its existence. Viewed broadly, political polarization is also severe in the West. As socioeconomic polarization increases, the ideological and policy distance between parties reflecting this widens, leading to political conflict and paralysis. How should we view the situation in Korea?

General Election Marked by Intensified Political Polarization, Factional Logic, and Confrontational Politics

■ Professor Choi Tae-wook: The detrimental effects of factional and confrontational politics by the two major parties, not based on ideology, have always been severe. This has been the case since Korea's democratization in '87. However, this time, during the electoral system reform process, even proportional seats were involved, and citizens witnessed the absurd tactic of satellite parties, a complete abandonment of minimal dignity. This led to a perception of intense confrontation, and since citizens also participated in this confrontational politics, it is true that it has become more severe this time. (...) In fact, the purpose of electoral system reform was to introduce a highly proportional electoral system to allow for the emergence of influential new parties in proportion to the votes received, thereby resolving factional and confrontational politics. However, in the process, the two major parties became deeply involved and sought to divide even the proportional seats, thereby significantly reducing the space for third parties to emerge compared to previous elections. Consequently, the third zone was annihilated.

Is it a COVID election?

■ Professor Kang Won-taek: When national crises and emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic occur, the public's primary attention inevitably shifts to the role of the state and public matters, i.e., the public domain. The recent COVID-19 situation has increased attention on the role of the state, encompassing both central and local governments, and this has led to issues of citizen participation and publicness, resulting in high voter turnout. Furthermore, the phenomenon of rallying around the national leader during a crisis (rally around the flag) was undeniably evident during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Collapse of Civil Society

■ Professor Choi Tae-wook: Let's take a closer look at our political landscape. If complex tactics and meaningful political games were to unfold in every general election and presidential election, new analyses and interpretations would be needed for policy competition, and the assistance of civil society and experts would always be necessary. However, the current political game is not based on policy or ideology, but rather a game under a constitutional system led by two influential parties based on region or individual, like in the agricultural era, and a hegemonic president. (...) If civil society or academia are to gain a position from which they can offer meaningful direction, an environment must be established where the current confrontational politics between the two major parties collapses and new influential third parties can emerge. When new parties emerge in a new era, opinions on direction, ideology, strategy, and tactics will be needed, but political forces accustomed to the current system do not require advice or oversight.

The Ideological and Generational Landscape of the Republic of Korea Has Not Changed.

■ Professor Kang Won-taek: Looking at the results of this election, the Democratic Party received 49.9% of the vote in district constituencies, and the Future United Party received 41.5%. For party votes, the Future Korea Party received 33.8% and the Democratic Party received 33.4%, which were similar. Of course, if we add the votes for progressive parties such as the Open Citizens' Party and the Justice Party, it increases to 48.5%, but I do not believe this signifies a fundamental change in the ideological landscape. The fact that the conservative party's support has remained unchanged is because the conservatives failed to respond adequately to the political changes since 2017, and therefore, centrist voters sided with the Democratic Party this time.

The Current Proportional System is Destined for Disposal

■ Professor Choi Tae-wook: To overcome the current ills of Korean politics, institutional reform is unavoidable. This general election is the first outcome of electoral system reform. The Future United Party, which originally opposed reform, will naturally call for the abolition of the current proportional system, and National Assembly members from the Democratic Party who inwardly opposed it will also prefer its abolition. I believe the current proportional system will be abolished. The next options are two: first, to maintain the linked proportional representation system, and second, to introduce a new electoral system.

The President Should Utilize Citizens' Assemblies

■ Professor Choi Tae-wook: I have previously proposed the introduction of citizens' assemblies as a way to enhance the level of consensus (EAI Heard Commentary 'The Revised Election Law Went Astray, Where is the Public Will?', 2020/03/12). In fact, there are countries that have reformed their electoral systems through citizens' assemblies. Canada and the Netherlands have developed electoral laws where residents decide on provincial electoral laws, and provincial governors have often convened citizens' assemblies for reform. If we were to apply this to our country, the President would convene a citizens' assembly to create an electoral system reform proposal through citizens, and then the President would submit it to the National Assembly as a legislative bill. This would allow the National Assembly to conduct a public vote. The convening of a citizens' assembly signifies that the entire civil society will discuss this issue.

The Hegemonic Presidential System Needs Surgery

■ Professor Kang Won-taek: Power structure reform must accompany reform. The core of the demands raised in the 2016 candlelight vigils was ultimately to change the 'hegemonic presidential system.' However, even after the change of power, it seems we are still under a hegemonic president. The Blue House's leadership in state affairs has, in fact, been further strengthened. (...) Criticism at the government/administrative level and criticism at the national/systemic level must be distinguished. When these are mixed, the nation drifts. Power sharing is needed between the President, who is responsible for long-term strategies for social integration, national security, and the future, and the Prime Minister, who serves as the head of administration. Ultimately, this requires constitutional amendment, but if that is difficult, the Prime Minister should at least be elected by the National Assembly. I hope for swift social discussion regarding constitutional amendment.

■ Managed and Edited by: Lee Young-hyun, EAI Researcher

Inquiries: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 207) ylee@eai.or.kr