Merger of opposition forces
.jpg?w=728)
By Tong Kim
As the state of North Korean affairs appears calm, compared to this time last year, the major political parties ― Saenuri and Democratic ― are moving into high gear toward the upcoming local elections slated for June 4 that will choose mayors, governors and council members for all levels of administrative autonomies ationwide.
This year’s local elections would not be a referendum to judge the performance of the Park Geun-hye administration, given the comfortable level of public support it currently enjoys as reflected in various polls.
However, if Saenuri exaggerates the significance of the local elections and lose, it could precipitate an early lame-duck syndrome to the Park administration.
The mayoral election for Seoul is already attracting a great deal of interest from political observers. The stature of a Seoul mayor stands only next to that of the presidency, and it could add an automatic advantage to candidacy for the next presidential election.
Incumbent Mayor Park Won-soon was elected basically as a Democrat, and he is unchallenged so far from within the opposition camp.
Park will run again as the candidate of a new united opposition party to emerge from a planned merger of the largest opposition party that has 126 seats in the National Assembly and the followers of the New Political Vision Party led by Ahn Cheol-soo.
As of last weekend, Mayor Park was leading any potential Saenuri candidate by a narrow margin in various polls.
Saenuri is expected to stage an interesting primary to choose between Chung Mong-joon, a seven-term lawmaker and a former Hyundai CEO, and Kim Hwang-shik, a former prime minister during the Lee Myung-bak administration. The ruling party is hoping such a show of competition will attract public interest and support for its candidate.
The local elections will elect mayors for seven large metropolitan cities, including Seoul, governors for nine provinces, administrative chiefs for 69 “gu” districts, 75 municipalities and 83 counties as well as numerous members of their councils.
An interesting development in the dialectic evolution of electoral systems relates to the issue of party endorsement for candidates for the basic autonomies.
During the last presidential election, the candidates of both major parties ran on the same campaign pledge to scrap the party endorsement system for the basic administrative offices under the level of mayors of the metropolitan cities and governors of the provinces.
Both parties wanted to get rid of illegal practices of influence peddling and bribery in the nomination process of local candidates.
But the party endorsement system has some merits. When competing for national offices, the parties can rely on the active support of the local office holders who have been elected on party endorsement.
The parties can also nominate female and disabled candidates who are disadvantaged under the regular system. They may nominate “strategic candidates” who are specially recommended to win some electoral districts.
Saenuri has opted to keep the old endorsement system, betraying its own pledge. To make it up, the ruling party says its nomination process will be a “bottom-up approach,” by which candidates are to be selected through fair competition at the local levels without any influence from above.
On the other hand, the Democratic Party has decided to drop the party endorsement system for the basic local offices and has agreed to build a new political party with the “new politics” seekers of Ahn Cheol-soo’s phenomenon. In a general political calculation, the merger is a good move, but the drop of the endorsement system is not.
Voters are too concerned about which party keeps or drops its pledge on the party endorsement of basic-level local candidates. They care more about the policy platforms and programs that affect their immediate interest in jobs, growth, fair opportunity, or improved welfare, as promised by all the parties.
The Democratic Party’s decision to merge with the New Political Vision Party was an inevitable choice to avoid a political crisis. Its support rating went down to 16 percent at one point, while Saenuri has been at a steady rating of between 39 to 45 percent.
In addition, the challenge of the Ahn Cheol-soo group’s declaration to form an independent party was a final blow to the traditional opposition party. The third group’s rating was 18 percent.
For the last 12 months, the Democratic Party has wasted its energy taking issue with the National Intelligence Service’s meddling in the last presidential election and fighting an ineffective battle against a popular president. The opposition party has a record of several splits and integrations, although the ruling party has repeatedly changed its names in the past two decades too.
Under a presidential system, many agree, a two-party system should work better than a multi-party system.
Before the merger of the two opposition forces was announced, the divided opposition forces seemed to have no chance to compete with the ruling party because of its solid support base. A fair balance of political power is healthy for democracy.
The emerging party should not wrestle with the elusive concept of “new politics.” People prefer to see politicians give up their privileges, prerogatives and personal interests in seeking re-elections.
“New politics” has already become a nebulous cliche, like “creative economy,” “democratic economy,” or “people’s happiness” without any definitive meaning.
If the opposition members transform themselves and reform the practices of their party politics to deliver better services, it would also have a positive influence on their rival party. That would be the way forward to a mature democracy. What’s your take?
The author is a visiting scholar at the Ilmin Institute of International Relations at Korea University, a visiting professor at the University of North Korean Studies and an ICAS fellow in the U.S.