ED Intimidating the judiciary
Rep. Lee Jae-myung, presidential candidate of the Democratic Party of Korea, reacts to his supporters during a campaign rally held in Gimpo, Gyeonggi Province, on Tuesday. Yonhap
DPK must stop undemocratic push to shield its candidate
The separation of powers is absolutely essential to any functioning democracy. Under this principle, the three branches of government — the legislature, the judiciary and the executive — operate independently to maintain a system of checks and balances. When one branch accumulates excessive power, a nation risks sliding into tyranny or even dictatorship.
This foundational principle is under threat. The Democratic Party of Korea (DPK), leveraging its majority in the National Assembly, has taken steps that appear aimed at increasing its influence over the judiciary. It has advanced a series of controversial bills, reportedly intended to shield its presidential candidate, Lee Jae-myung, from legal consequences, despite strong opposition from the People Power Party (PPP).
In a democratic society, rewriting or crafting legislation to protect individual politicians from legal jeopardy is unacceptable. Yet such undemocratic practices have become disturbingly routine in the DPK-dominated National Assembly.
The party has targeted judges involved in cases related to Lee, subjecting them to persistent attacks and political pressure. In some instances, the DPK has even been accused of attempting to coerce judicial outcomes in its favor.
Just last week, the DPK held a hearing to scrutinize Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae following a Supreme Court ruling on May 1 that jeopardized Lee’s political future. The court overturned a previous decision by the Seoul High Court, which had cleared Lee of violating the Public Official Election Act. In response, the DPK threatened to launch an independent counsel investigation into the chief justice, a move widely seen as politically motivated. Judges must be able to render decisions independently, without fear of reprisal. They should not be punished for making conscientious decisions.
The DPK’s abuse of legislative power to serve partisan interests and its intimidation of the judiciary are deeply troubling.
This situation is particularly dangerous given the upcoming presidential election on June 3. Polls show Lee Jae-myung out in front, maintaining a double-digit lead over the PPP’s Kim Moon-soo. If Lee is elected, the DPK will hold control over the executive and the legislature and is expected to continue to intimidate the judiciary. Based on the party's numerous misconducts in the legislature, there is little reason to believe that the essential system of checks and balances will remain intact.
The DPK and its presidential candidate, Lee Jae-myung, must pause and ask themselves a critical question: Will their increasingly confrontational and unilateral behavior ultimately help Lee win the upcoming presidential election? Although he currently leads in opinion polls, a victory is far from assured. Polls are not election results, and no one can say with certainty that Lee will be declared the winner. Korean politics is dynamic, and last-minute shifts in voter sentiment could easily change the outcome. Some of Lee’s current supporters may ultimately decide to vote against him.
Lee stands to gain nothing if his party continues to undermine the foundations of Korea's democracy. On the contrary, he may become a casualty of his own party’s reckless overreach. If the DPK is increasingly viewed by the public as a political bully, trampling over democratic norms and the rule of law, it could seriously backfire, both for the party and for Lee himself.
Among the most troubling tactics employed by the DPK is its targeting of the judiciary. One such effort centers on revising the Public Official Election Act — a move clearly aimed at sparing Lee from looming legal risks.
Lee's legal troubles are significant. The Seoul High Court is set to review his alleged violation of the Public Official Election Act after the election. Previously, a district court sentenced him to one year in prison, suspended for two years. If this ruling is upheld, Lee would be barred from running for public office for the next 10 years.
A major question looms: If elected, will Lee still stand trial? Legal experts are divided. Some argue that he should, as the case predates his potential presidency. Others claim that, according to the Constitution, a sitting president is immune from prosecution unless involved in insurrection or treason.
In a blatant attempt to shield its candidate, the DPK introduced an amendment to the Public Official Election Act that would effectively decriminalize the actions for which Lee was convicted. Under the current law, candidates can be prosecuted for making false statements about their background, including their place of birth, family, profession, career, wealth and personal conduct. Lee was charged with making false claims about his past conduct. The proposed amendment seeks to remove “conduct” (or “deeds”) from the list of prosecutable offenses.
This revision bill has already passed the Judiciary and Legislation Committee and is now awaiting a vote in a plenary session of the National Assembly. If passed, the amendment could exempt Lee from standing trial for his current charges.
Such a move not only undermines the rule of law but also sets a dangerous precedent. If laws can be changed to protect individuals in power, the entire democratic framework is weakened. The DPK must stop its undemocratic push to shield its candidate.