ED PPP's dangerous turn inward

Kim Jong-hyuk, a former Supreme Council member of the conservative main opposition People Power Party, speaks to reporters after attending a session of the party’s Ethics Committee at its headquarters in Yeouido, Seoul, Jan. 19. Yonhap

The decision by the main opposition People Power Party (PPP) to impose a “recommendation to resign from the party” on former Supreme Council member Kim Jong-hyuk is more than an internal disciplinary matter.

It is a revealing test of whether the party still functions as a democratic political organization or whether it has drifted into an illiberal structure that suppresses dissent and punishes criticism in the name of authority.

The sanction, handed down by the party’s Central Ethics Committee, is effectively a forced expulsion. If Kim does not voluntarily leave within 10 days, he will be expelled automatically. The stated reason is that Kim used “derogatory and provocative language” in media interviews when criticizing party leader Jang Dong-hyeok and certain party members. While Kim’s words were undeniably sharp, the decision to impose one of the harshest penalties available raises a far more serious question: Since when has political criticism itself become grounds for banishment from a democratic political party?

Crucially, Kim was not accused of manipulating public opinion, spreading false information or violating electoral law. His offense was political speech — criticism of the party leadership’s direction, particularly its accommodation of far-right forces and conspiracy-driven narratives such as election fraud conspiracy theories. Disciplining a party member for the substance and tone of such criticism amounts to punishing dissent, not protecting party ethics.

The Ethics Committee’s own reasoning makes the problem even clearer. In its written decision, it argued that the party leader is not merely a private individual but an institutional embodiment of the “aggregate free will” of party members, and that excessive criticism undermines the leader’s authority, legitimacy and leadership. This logic is deeply troubling. In a democratic system, authority derived from collective choice is precisely what makes leaders subject to criticism, not immune from it. To suggest otherwise is to invert the basic principles of democratic accountability.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this reasoning would imply that presidents, legislators or any elected officials should be shielded from harsh criticism because they represent the collective will of voters. That is not democracy; it is the language of authoritarianism. Comparisons to leader-centric ideologies — whether North Korea’s “supreme leader” doctrine or the totalitarian traditions of 20th-century Europe — may sound extreme, but the underlying logic is uncomfortably similar.

The severity of the punishment further underscores its political nature. The party’s own audit body reportedly recommended a lesser sanction: suspension of party membership for two years. The Ethics Committee escalated it to near-expulsion. This discrepancy strongly suggests that the decision was driven less by ethical consistency than by factional calculation. Kim is a close associate of former party leader Han Dong-hoon, and the current leadership, buoyed by so-called “Yoon Again” forces, appears intent on purging internal critics rather than engaging with them.

This pattern is unfolding against a broader backdrop of democratic backsliding. Nationally, the PPP has struggled to clearly distance itself from forces associated with constitutional disruption and authoritarian nostalgia. Internally, it is now displaying the same tendencies — silencing dissent, elevating loyalty over principle and redefining criticism as subversion.

The implications go beyond one individual. Kim Jong-hyuk’s case may well be a preview of what lies ahead for other dissenting voices, including Han himself. The message is unmistakable: Challenge the leadership’s line, especially its rapprochement with far-right elements, and you risk political exile.

History offers a clear lesson. Political parties that suppress internal debate and criminalize criticism do not project strength; they reveal insecurity. In an era when voters demand transparency, pluralism and democratic integrity, a party clinging to outdated authoritarian instincts is not merely out of step — it is undermining its own legitimacy.

A party that speaks the language of freedom while punishing free expression cannot expect public trust. If the PPP continues down this path, the judgment will not come only from internal critics, but from the electorate — and from history itself.