What is wrong with interfering in politics?
The sentencing of Han Hak-ja, the leader of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, and the trial of Shincheonji leader Lee Man-hee raise a question that does not seem to get asked very often in Korea: Why are churches and some social organizations so restricted in their involvement in politics while others aren’t?
Han, 83, and legally blind, was sentenced this week to two years in prison after being found guilty of political funding and other offences. Among the charges was approving the delivery of luxury goods, including a Chanel handbag and a diamond necklace, to Kim Keon Hee, the former first lady, through an intermediary. She faces further proceedings over other alleged financial offences.
Lee Man-hee, 95, meanwhile, is being tried over allegations that he ordered tens of thousands of Shincheonji members to join the People Power Party in order to influence its primaries and elections.
The prosecutors describe this as a serious matter of religious-political collusion, saying they had uncovered “the first case in which a religious organization used its large-scale organizational power to influence the decision-making of a particular political party.”
But what exactly is wrong with this? I get it in a dictatorship. In North Korea, I could get arrested for writing this column. But in democratic South Korea, what's wrong with churches maneuvering to get their preferred candidates elected?
As ordinary voters — let's be honest — our response is likely to be: “Nothing, as long as they’re not supporting the other side.”
You may think I am joking. But, then, look at why these cases have made it this far, and you might assume that we have two cases of selective prosecution here. That is because the two new religions in the dock both supported, or were alleged to have supported, opponents of the current government.
With Han’s Family Federation, formerly known as the Unification Church, involvement in politics is nuanced in that it usually supports both sides. That is because, like the conglomerates, it is keen to avoid making an enemy out of a new administration. It builds relationships, makes approaches and seeks influence. But it has little interest in actual policies.
Shincheonji is more straightforward. Prosecutors say more than 56,000 of its members joined the People Power Party between 2021 and 2024. Why would they do that? I haven’t asked them, but my guess is that the purpose was deliberately to oppose Lee Jae Myung. As governor of Gyeonggi Province, where Shincheonji’s headquarters are located, Lee went on the attack during the COVID-19 pandemic, accusing it of things it said it had not done and publicly humiliating its leader.
Religious people can be surprisingly sensitive about humiliation. It is hardly surprising that so many Shincheonji members opposed him, even if the church gave them the idea.
But, we should ask, so what? Is that such a crime?
Well, technically, it is in this country. The reason Korea has such restrictions goes back to the authoritarian past when governments arranged organizations such as “youth groups” and village associations to hold political rallies and mobilize voters. When democratic elections became more established, the suspicion of organizations using their collective power to influence elections remained enshrined in the law. The result is a complicated system in which individual citizens have broad political freedom, while organizations can find themselves sharply restricted.
But surely now, the electorate is more sophisticated. To back up that opinion, consider this: Even newspapers can’t endorse candidates.
You may have noticed that, come election time, the editorial pages of Korean newspapers, including this one, do not say: “We think Candidate A would be better for Korea than Candidate B.” That is because the election law imposes a duty of “fairness” on media organizations when reporting and commenting on parties and candidates — which is why coverage of the main parties is relatively equal, and even the fringe candidates get a second tier of similar coverage.
In practice, newspapers have to be extremely careful about crossing that line.
You might think the same principle would apply to labor unions and nongovernmental organizations. Surely they, too, are legally blocked from saying, "We think that Candidate would be better for labor than Candidate B"? Well, no, they're not.
The law has evolved to give unions greater freedom to campaign. The Constitutional Court has explicitly recognized this special treatment.
As for other types of associations, there is no real logic. Alumni associations, for example, are not allowed to support specific politicians or parties, but many civic groups are.
Perhaps it is time for some consistency.
This is not to say that churches should have unrestricted political freedom; it is that the law should distinguish between corruption and legitimate advocacy.
In other words, it’s reasonable to prosecute Han Hak-ja and Lee Man-hee if they have presided over corruption.
But when it comes to favoring parties and candidates they think are best for their interests and for the country, surely they should be free to recommend them to their members, just as unions and nongovernmental organizations are — even if they prefer a party or candidate that you personally disapprove of.
Michael Breen (mike.breen@insightcomms.com) is the author of "The New Koreans.” The views expressed here are his own.