Constitutional Court must make wise judgment on UPP
The Cabinet on Tuesday approved a petition calling for the breakup of the leftist Unified Progressive Party (UPP). After the passage, the government filed the proposal with the Constitutional Court upon approval from President Park Geun-hye who is now visiting Western Europe.
This is the first time in the nation's constitutional history that the government has lodged a constitutional petition to seek the dissolution of a political party. Therefore, there has been no precedent in which such a petition has been accepted.
The proposal to disband the minor opposition party comes two months after some of the UPP's members, including Rep. Lee Seok-ki, were arrested on charges of plotting an armed insurrection in support of North Korea.
The petition comes in line with the Constitution stipulating that the government can ask the Constitutional Court to review the disbandment of a political party if its purposes and activities violate our "basic democratic order.''
The top court's decision counts for much, considering that it will set a criterion for how much freedom political parties can be assured of in their activities under the Constitution.
Justice Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn said that his ministry judged that the party's purposes and activities were in violation of the basic democratic order under our Constitution.
"UPP's platform envisions pursuing North Korean socialism that is contrary to our democratic order and insurrection plots and other activities of the Revolutionary Organization (RO), the party's key underground organ, were in line with the Stalinist North's strategy to revolutionize South Korea,'' Hwang said at a press briefing after the Cabinet meeting.
The progressive party condemned the filing of the proposal as an "act trampling on the basic values of democracy,'' saying that President Park was seeking to suppress the people's censure of her administration that came into being through a rigged election.
Despite the constitutional plea, it remains to be seen whether the Constitutional Court will support the dissolution of the left-leaning party in the end because the government must prove that the involved parties discussed detailed plans to overthrow the state and the Constitution. Specifically, the authorities should prove the existence of close relationships between the UPP and the RO.
True, there is criticism that the government hastened the disbandment filing without going through a proper process to collect opinions at a time when the court has yet to rule on sedition charges against Lee and other party members.
We also wonder if a party should be dissolved merely because a few party members were indicted for subversion. Another criticism is that it will amount to infringing on the people's rights if the government seeks to break up a party by placing restrictions on the people's political choice.
Given that there will be fierce ideological, political and jurisprudential clashes, the Constitutional Court ought to make a wise judgment as soon as possible, based on justices' responsible awareness about history, as the main opposition Democratic Party rightly commented.
The Cabinet on Tuesday approved a petition calling for the breakup of the leftist Unified Progressive Party (UPP). After the passage, the government filed the proposal with the Constitutional Court upon approval from President Park Geun-hye who is now visiting Western Europe.
This is the first time in the nation's constitutional history that the government has lodged a constitutional petition to seek the dissolution of a political party. Therefore, there has been no precedent in which such a petition has been accepted.
The proposal to disband the minor opposition party comes two months after some of the UPP's members, including Rep. Lee Seok-ki, were arrested on charges of plotting an armed insurrection in support of North Korea.
The petition comes in line with the Constitution stipulating that the government can ask the Constitutional Court to review the disbandment of a political party if its purposes and activities violate our "basic democratic order.''
The top court's decision counts for much, considering that it will set a criterion for how much freedom political parties can be assured of in their activities under the Constitution.
Justice Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn said that his ministry judged that the party's purposes and activities were in violation of the basic democratic order under our Constitution.
"UPP's platform envisions pursuing North Korean socialism that is contrary to our democratic order and insurrection plots and other activities of the Revolutionary Organization (RO), the party's key underground organ, were in line with the Stalinist North's strategy to revolutionize South Korea,'' Hwang said at a press briefing after the Cabinet meeting.
The progressive party condemned the filing of the proposal as an "act trampling on the basic values of democracy,'' saying that President Park was seeking to suppress the people's censure of her administration that came into being through a rigged election.
Despite the constitutional plea, it remains to be seen whether the Constitutional Court will support the dissolution of the left-leaning party in the end because the government must prove that the involved parties discussed detailed plans to overthrow the state and the Constitution. Specifically, the authorities should prove the existence of close relationships between the UPP and the RO.
True, there is criticism that the government hastened the disbandment filing without going through a proper process to collect opinions at a time when the court has yet to rule on sedition charges against Lee and other party members.
We also wonder if a party should be dissolved merely because a few party members were indicted for subversion. Another criticism is that it will amount to infringing on the people's rights if the government seeks to break up a party by placing restrictions on the people's political choice.
Given that there will be fierce ideological, political and jurisprudential clashes, the Constitutional Court ought to make a wise judgment as soon as possible, based on justices' responsible awareness about history, as the main opposition Democratic Party rightly commented.
