[EAI Heard Commentary] The Amended 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' to provide easier and more convenient access to expert commentary on major domestic and international issues. As the first installment, we present commentary by Professor Choi Tae-wook of the Graduate School of International Studies, Hallym University, who evaluated the 2019 electoral system reform and presented prospects and tasks for the 2020 general election. There is no room for disagreement that Korea must complete the task of political reform to become an advanced democratic nation. To this end, the amendment bill for the election law was passed on December 27, 2019. The new election law, centered on the semi-proportional representation system, was introduced to our political society with the expectation that it would enhance democratic representation from the winner-take-all electoral system that had been criticized, develop the party system from a regional and personality-centered one to an ideology and policy-centered one, and serve as a cornerstone for overcoming the ills of the existing structured two-party system. However, the author points out that the amended 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 to avoid repeating mistakes in political reform, a process of reaching social consensus must precede it, and proposes the convocation of a 'Citizens' Assembly' as a means to gather the people's will.

EAI Heard Commentary Script

Hello! EAI, the East Asia Institute, has launched 'EAI Heard Commentary.' Through 'EAI Heard Commentary,' you can easily 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 under the amended election law, is fraught with complex issues that must be addressed, issues that cannot be overshadowed by the uncontrollably spreading novel virus. First, the new electoral system, semi-proportional representation, is unfamiliar in name and its concept is difficult to grasp. While the crucial policy competition is sidelined, the public is confused by the political maneuvering for seats, and the post-election political landscape is 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 has evaluated the 2019 electoral system reform and presented prospects and tasks for the 2020 general election. Now, let's begin!

There is no room for disagreement that Korea must complete the task of political reform to become an advanced democratic nation. The Moon Jae-in administration also has the establishment of 'cooperative and decentralized democracy' for an 'innovative inclusive nation' as its vision for political reform and has demonstrated its reform will through various speeches and government documents. As part of these efforts, the amendment bill for the election law was passed on December 27, 2019. The new election law, centered on the semi-proportional representation system, was introduced to our political society with the expectation that it would enhance democratic representation from the winner-take-all electoral system that had been criticized, develop the party system from a regional and personality-centered one to an ideology and policy-centered one, 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 might be a futile expectation. This is because the amended 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.

Look back at the electoral system reform process over the past few years. The Liberty Korea Party consistently obstructed reform, for instance, by backtracking on its position, stating that it would only 'consider' introducing a proportional representation system when discussions were mature, rather than 'agree' to it. The Democratic Party of Korea has been leading the electoral system reform 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 itself, disregarding the backlash 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 seats subject to the proportional system to 30. The final bill, which represents a considerable retreat from previous agreements, was decided with 253 constituency seats, a 50% compensation ratio for 30 proportional seats, and 17 additional 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, as a stepping stone to secure 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 to hold an internal vote, but appears 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 and are anxious about losing proportional seats. Amidst this confusion, with pro-government forces such as 'Election Alliance Party' and 'For the Citizens' stepping in to support the ruling party, the situation on election day, even the ballots, is unpredictable. As always, the damage from the political infighting will be borne by the public. Therefore, to avoid repeating mistakes in political reform, a process of reaching social consensus on reform must precede it.

Laws are, after all, the product of consensus. Even if a law is made, its purpose is difficult to achieve if the people to whom it applies do not respect its intent. The fundamental reason why parties, regardless of whether they are in power or opposition, openly resort to trickery, such as creating proportional parties, is likely the low level of consensus on the new election law. The higher the level of consensus, the greater the degree to which people respect the law, wouldn't you agree? Who would dare to ignore 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 the citizen initiative and referendum systems, common in advanced democratic countries, are either non-existent or inadequate? The simplest and most efficient way to reach social consensus is to convene a citizens' assembly. Reforms to electoral systems that include citizens' assemblies have already been attempted several times under the initiative of state governments in countries such as Canada and the Netherlands. In fact, such discussions are not unfamiliar in Korean politics. The possibility of promoting a citizens' assembly system has already been seriously discussed within the Korean political sphere. We must not repeat past mistakes. We cannot afford to be dragged along, deceived by the political establishment, in the future. 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 promoted with the active participation of citizens, will have both substantive content and a higher likelihood of realization. I sincerely hope that political reform will get on the right track and be pursued through a more mature consensus process, such as the citizens' assembly system.

With the virus outbreak, the 2020 general election is not receiving the attention it deserves. We must watch carefully whether the original intent of the election law amendment will be well reflected, or if we will be fooled again by political trickery. This has been EAI Heard Commentary! This was Yoon Jun-il of the East Asia Institute. ■

Professor Choi Tae-wook's original commentary can be viewed through the "Commentary Download" below.

■ Author: Choi Tae-wook_ Professor at Graduate School of International Studies, Hallym University. He obtained 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 Alliance, and an advisory committee member for the Speaker of the National Assembly. His main research areas include democracy and market economy, political economy of welfare states, and East Asian economic integration. His recent works include 'Making a Welfare Korea' (co-edited), 'Discussing Korean-style Consensus Democracy,' and 'The Youth's Party of Conscience.'

■ 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 be sure to cite the source when quoting. EAI is an independent research institution, unaffiliated with any partisan interests. The claims and opinions expressed in reports, journals, and books published by EAI are not attributable to EAI and are solely the views of the respective authors.