Despite the twists and turns, the South Korea politics is pioneering and carving out a new road to democracy. On December 27, 2019, the *Revised Public Official Election Act* passed the Assembly plenary session after a long struggle. With numerous discussions made to reach an agreement, the revision of the *Public Official Election Act* was led, regarding an interlinked proportional representation system and voting rights for 18-year-old students. Problem being that it contains both significance and limits at the same time, it has been a topic of controversy. With the general election approaching, the public’s eyes are on how the new act will influence the political situation in Korea.
The revised act includes changes such as proportional representation system of parliamentary seats and voting age, and is to take its first effect on the 21st general election in April 2020. Although the revised act finally reached an agreement and was passed, controversy regarding an Interlinked Proportional Representation System (IPRS) has remained through the whole process. Opposition from the United Future Party (UFP) and the original purpose of the election law revision were in conflict. There were attempts to launch a filibuster by UFP and even physical actions to stop the passing of the bill. What is it about the revised act that caused the smooth and peaceful agreement in parliament go west?
Ignition of Change by Minority Parties
The existing election system was said to be the cause of a large number of voting resignation. In the 20th general election held in 2016, 50.3 percent of the votes were for resignation. In the general election, each voter casts two ballots; one for a candidate the voter supports and another to vote on the political party that they support, regardless of region. There are total of 300 seats in the Congress, of which 253 allocated through a vote by the former, and the remaining 47 seats based on the percentage of votes each party won in the latter. This currently existing system is difficult for each party to have their votes reflected in the seats, thereby creating a serious discrepancy between the percentage of votes won by parties and the percentage of seats held by each party.
Kang Ki-suk, the chairman of Korea News Agency Commission (KONAC) shared a view that it also creates a monopolization of two major parties, stating “Only candidates of particular parties are elected in particular regions, which makes it hard for the minor parties without a regional base to produce winners,” also adding “This leads to a problem that the people who support the minor parties do not have lawmakers who represent themselves in the Assembly.” Even if they have won a large number of proportional representation votes, it is limited. As such, out of 253 seats, the Democratic Party (DP) and UFP hold 116 and 91 seats respectively, showing an overwhelming proportion.
Thus, in order to minimize the distortion of the people’s will and enable more diverse policies and ideologies in the Congress, the key of the revision, IPRS was proposed. If a party got fewer seats in the district but at the same time got high percentage of votes in the party vote, it guarantees the party to take more proportional representative seats. It can be seen as more advantageous for minor parties—especially the 3rd and 4th most popular parties, Bareunmirae Party and Justice Party—which take relatively fewer seats in the district.
Minority parties are expected to have a wider way of winning seats in the Congress, paving a way for the two-party-oriented domestic politics to move toward a multi-party format. Professor Park Hyun-sung (Division of Liberal Arts and Social Science, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) stated, “If the number of parties that hold seats increases due to the introduction of a multiparty system and the enhanced proportional representation, it is likely that a culture of consulting with each other will be encouraged. Hence, making it difficult to determine policies without the consultation between parties could reflect the views of more diverse voters.”
Political Parties with a Long Face
The UFP is unsatisfied with the revised election law, since its seats in the parliamentary along would be reduced. Although they argue that the IPRS violates the principle of direct and equal election, the harsh impact of IPRS on their political power is their fundamental reason for opposing the IPRS. The UFP, a conservative party, currently has 119 seats which is more than a rate of 40 percent. However, once the revised election law is applied, it will be difficult for the UFP to gain more than 100 seats.
Although the UFP showed strategies for delaying the plenary session of the Congress through filibuster, the revised election law was passed and the UFP accordingly announced that it would create a satellite party. They are seeking to secure a large number of proportional representative seats by encouraging voters who support their party to vote for their satellite party, and later merge again. Kang Ki-suk of KONAC mentioned the possibility of being alienated from the original purpose of the revision of the election law, saying “Although the DP is working on various measures such as solidarity with civic activists and other progressive parties, the spirit of the law revision is in situation of being undermined.” The DP is critical of the satellite party drive for now, as they cannot rule out the possibility of creating a satellite party as well.
The reaction of minority parties to the revised election law is not entirely positive either. The original intention was to reduce the number of seats of regional constituencies and increase the number of proportional seats. However, after the agreement was reached, the proportion of seats returned to its original status.
How is it going to be?
According to Kang Ki-suk of KONAC, “The previous proportional representation system was not an interlocked system, so it tended to be monopolized by large political parties, but now by adopting a quasi-IPRS, the equality of votes has improved and the value of democracy has been enhanced.” On the other hand, he also pointed out that “It is not a full IPRS which has some limits, and in the next general election, related laws should be revised to prevent the trickery of large major parties.”
Although controversies of the revised election law were mostly based on interests of each party, the fundamental right of national sovereignty, civility and cohesion should not be deprived. The consequences of the pioneering in the election law still remains in question. Afterall, elections are by and for the citizens.
Kweon Seoyoung
kb071531@korea.ac.kr