[EAI Heard Commentary] The Revised Election Law Went Astray, Where is the People's Will?

Editor's Note

The East Asia Institute (Director Son Yeol) is launching 'EAI Heard Commentary,' a content series designed to make expert analyses of major domestic and international issues more accessible and convenient. As the first installment, we present a commentary by Professor Choi Tae-wook of the Graduate School of International Studies, Hallym University, evaluating the 2019 electoral system reform and outlining the prospects and tasks for the 2020 general election. There is no room for disagreement that Korea must accomplish the task of political reform to become an advanced democratic nation. To this end, the revised election law was passed on December 27, 2019. The new election law, centered on a semi-proportional representation system, was introduced to our political society with the expectation that it would enhance democratic representation, moving away from the winner-take-all electoral system that had been criticized, foster a party system centered on ideology and policy rather than region and personality, and serve as a cornerstone for overcoming the ills of the existing structured two-party system. However, the author points out that the revised election law was agreed upon in an incomplete state, far from its original intent, due to the selfishness and trickery of the two major parties. The author emphasizes that a process of reaching social consensus must precede any political reform to avoid repeating past mistakes and proposes the convening of a 'Citizens' Assembly' as a means to gather the people's will.

EAI Heard Commentary Script

Hello! The East Asia Institute (EAI) has launched 'EAI Heard Commentary.' Through 'EAI Heard Commentary,' you can easily and conveniently listen to expert analyses of complex current issues. The first topic is the 2020 general election.

The season of general elections is upon us. The 2020 general election for the 21st National Assembly, the first to be held after the revision of the election law, is fraught with complex issues that must be addressed, issues that cannot be overshadowed by the uncontrollably spreading novel virus crisis. First, the new electoral system, semi-proportional representation, is unfamiliar in name and its concept is perplexing. While crucial policy competition takes a backseat, the public is confused by the political maneuvering for seats, and the post-election political landscape remains uncertain. The East Asia Institute aims to address key issues related to the upcoming general election through the commentary of Professor Choi Tae-wook of the Graduate School of International Studies, Hallym University, who evaluates the 2019 electoral system reform and presents the prospects and tasks for the 2020 general election. Now, let's begin!

There is no room for disagreement that Korea must accomplish the task of political reform to become an advanced democratic nation. The Moon Jae-in administration also regards the establishment of 'cooperative and decentralized democracy' for an 'innovative inclusive nation' as its vision for political reform and has demonstrated its commitment to reform through various speeches and government documents. As part of these efforts, the revised election law was passed on December 27, 2019. The new election law, centered on a semi-proportional representation system, was introduced to our political society with the expectation that it would enhance democratic representation, moving away from the winner-take-all electoral system that had been criticized, foster a party system centered on ideology and policy rather than region and personality, and serve as a cornerstone for overcoming the ills of the existing structured two-party system. However, the current political reality raises doubts as to whether this may be a futile expectation. This is because the revised election law was agreed upon in an incomplete state, far from its original intent, due to the selfishness and trickery of the two major parties.

Reflect on the electoral system reform process over the past few years. The Liberty Korea Party consistently obstructed reform, including backtracking on its stance by stating that it would only 'consider' introducing a proportional representation system when discussions were ripe, rather than 'agree' to it. The Democratic Party of Korea has been leading the electoral system reform discussions as an extension of the president's campaign pledges and party platform. However, faced with the reality of seat allocation, it forced a reform bill favorable to its own party, disregarding the opposition from minor parties and civil society. As a result, the number of proportional seats and the compensation ratio were significantly reduced, and a 'cap' was imposed, limiting the application of the proportional system to only 30 seats. Consequently, the final bill, a considerable retreat from previous agreements, was decided upon with 253 constituency seats, 30 proportional seats with a 50% compensation ratio, and 17 parallel proportional seats, and passed the plenary session of the National Assembly on December 27, 2019. This was the moment when the noble aspirations of the people for political reform ended in an anticlimactic fashion due to the strategic and short-sighted maneuvering of the two major parties.

The subsequent developments are even more disheartening. The United Future Party created a satellite party for proportional representation, the Future Korea Party, laying the groundwork for securing seats. The Democratic Party of Korea, caught in a dilemma between principle and pragmatism, debated whether to counter with its own proportional party, ultimately deciding on an internal vote, but seems to be moving towards establishing one. Minor parties, including the Justice Party, are closely watching the ruling party's moves to counter trickery with trickery, fearing the loss of proportional seats. Amidst this confusion, with pro-government forces like the 'Election Alliance Party' and 'For the Citizens' providing support for the ruling party, the situation on election day, even the ballots, is unpredictable. As always, the public will bear the brunt of the political infighting. Therefore, to avoid repeating mistakes in political reform, a process of reaching social consensus on reform must precede any reform efforts.

Laws, after all, are products of consensus. Even if a law is enacted, its objectives are difficult to achieve if those subject to the law do not respect its intent. The fundamental reason why parties, regardless of ruling or opposition, openly resort to trickery, such as creating proportional parties, is the low level of consensus on the new election law. Would not a higher level of consensus lead to a greater degree of respect for the law? Who can possibly disregard the general will of the people? Ultimately, the reason why no political party in countries like Germany or New Zealand, which have adopted a proportional representation system, engages in various forms of obstruction and trickery is likely because their election laws are based on social consensus.

Then, what should Korea do, where citizen initiatives and referendums, common in advanced democracies, are absent or underdeveloped? The simplest and most effective way to reach social consensus is to convene a citizens' assembly. Electoral system reforms that include citizens' assemblies have already been attempted multiple times under the initiative of state governments in countries like Canada and the Netherlands. In fact, such discussions are not unfamiliar in Korean politics. The possibility of promoting a citizens' assembly system has been seriously discussed within the Korean political sphere in the past. We must not repeat past mistakes. We cannot afford to be misled and dragged along by the political establishment any longer. Is it not time for a process of gathering the people's will, which no one can resist, to take root? It is natural that any reform, when pursued through a process of active citizen participation, will achieve both substantive content and practical realization. I earnestly hope that political reform will be set on the right track and pursued through a more mature consensus process, such as the citizens' assembly system.

With the virus outbreak overshadowing the 2020 general election, which deserves proper attention, it is crucial to watch closely whether the original intent of the election law revision will be reflected or if we will be deceived by political trickery once again. This has been EAI Heard Commentary! This was Yoon Jun-il of the East Asia Institute. ■

■ Author: Choi Tae-wook_ Professor at the Graduate School of International Studies, Hallym University. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from UCLA. He has served as an editorial board member for Changbi, a standing committee member for the People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, co-representative of the Proportional Representation Democracy Network, and a consultative committee member for the Speaker of the National Assembly. His main research areas include democracy and market economy, political economy of the welfare state, and East Asian economic integration. His recent publications include "Making a Welfare Korea" (co-edited), "Discussing Korean-style Consensus Democracy," and "The Youth Party."

■ Responsible Editor: Yoon Jun-il, EAI Researcher

Inquiries: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 203) I junilyoon@eai.or.kr

'EAI Heard Commentary' is a content series designed to provide easier and more convenient access to in-depth analyses of major domestic and international issues by experts. Please cite the source when quoting. EAI is an independent research institution, independent of any partisan interests. The claims and opinions presented in reports, journals, and books published by EAI are not attributable to EAI and solely represent the views of the respective authors.