ED Administrative integration in disarray
Rep. Shin Jung-hoon, chair of the National Assembly’s Public Administration and Security Committee, explains a special bill to establish the Jeonnam-Gwangju Integrated Special City, along with a proposed partial amendment to the Local Autonomy Act, during a session at the National Assembly in Seoul, March 1. Yonhap
Parties must prioritize national consequences over partisan interests
The passage of the Jeonnam (South Jeolla Province)-Gwangju Special Administrative Integration Act through the National Assembly on March 1, led by the ruling Democratic Party of Korea (DPK), should have marked a decisive step toward regional reform. Instead, it has exposed a dispiriting spectacle of partisan maneuvering.
Companion bills for the merging of Daegu-North Gyeongsang Province — commonly called TK — and South Chungcheong Province-Daejeon were shelved after days of acrimony between the DPK and the main opposition People Power Party (PPP), with each accusing the other of opportunism while engaging in it themselves.
At the heart of the impasse lies the TK integration bill. The PPP had earlier opposed its swift passage, citing local dissent, but reversed course abruptly after facing mounting criticism in the TK region. With local elections looming in June, party leaders grew anxious that wavering on integration could imperil their electoral prospects, even in what has long been considered a conservative stronghold. The party went so far as to halt a planned filibuster and formally adopt support for TK integration as its party line.
Yet the DPK, rather than seizing the opportunity to build consensus, raised the bar further. It demanded not only a public apology for the PPP’s earlier vacillation but also an official commitment to support the South Chungcheong-Daejeon integration bill. The insistence that “integration must proceed as a set” may reflect a desire for comprehensive reform, but in the present context it has come across as political brinkmanship. When one party belatedly aligns with a policy long deemed essential, the appropriate response is to advance the legislation, not exploit the shift for leverage.
This political theater obscures a far more consequential issue. Administrative integration is not a tactical gambit; it is a national strategy. Korea faces an entrenched structural imbalance in which the capital region dominates economic opportunity, population growth and public investment. Outside the Seoul metropolitan area, provinces grapple with demographic decline, shrinking tax bases and the specter of local extinction. Consolidating adjacent jurisdictions is intended to strengthen administrative efficiency, pool fiscal resources and create poles of regional growth capable of competing with the capital.
Indeed, the idea of integration did not originate with one party alone. Even before President Lee Jae Myung’s remarks in December accelerated discussion, governors and mayors affiliated with the PPP had declared their intention to pursue mergers and introduce special legislation. To reduce such an initiative to narrow calculations about who might run for a newly created mayoralty, or which party might benefit electorally, is to trivialize a project of national consequence.
The South Chungcheong-Daejeon case illustrates the complexity of the issue. Local leaders and lawmakers there remain divided, and public opinion is not uniformly supportive. But disagreement within a region does not absolve national parties of the responsibility to lead. If South Jeolla-Gwangju alone proceeds to form a new metropolitan entity, while other regions stall amid partisan bickering, accusations of regional favoritism will be inevitable, particularly given the significant fiscal support promised to integrated cities. Such an outcome would undercut the very rationale of balanced development that integration seeks to advance.
Time is also of the essence. For integrated special cities to elect their leaders in the June 3 local elections, the enabling laws must be promulgated by mid-April. While there remains a narrow window, further delay risks administrative confusion and erodes public confidence. Passing the bills together during the current parliamentary session would provide clarity and allow preparatory procedures to proceed in earnest.
Both parties must confront their own failings. The PPP’s earlier vacillation, driven by electoral anxieties and internal divisions, has damaged its credibility. The DPK’s escalating demands, meanwhile, risk appearing less like principled insistence on coherence and more like an attempt to corner a weakened rival. The public sees little distinction between a party that hesitates for political gain and one that capitalizes on that hesitation.
Administrative integration was conceived as a response to an existential challenge: how to prevent regional decline and rebalance national development. It demands steadiness, foresight and cooperation across party lines. The National Assembly should rise above tactical calculations and complete its legislative task without further delay. The stakes extend well beyond political advantage; they concern the future architecture of the nation itself.