[The Editors' Verdict] The Dilemma of People Power Party Candidate Unification

Sangbyung Park, Political Commentator

This election is also unlikely to become a policy-focused election. Since it is an election to choose the mayor of Seoul with just about one year left in the term, it is difficult to expect significant policies. Voters are well aware of how flimsy the policy pledges presented by each candidate are. Therefore, the trust in policy pledges is not very high. The candidates themselves are well aware of this fact. Nevertheless, they competitively put forward policy pledges. This is because they can promote themselves, highlight differences from other candidates, and attract public attention. This explains the background of the irresponsible pledges that defy common sense.

There is something more serious than distrust in policy pledges. It is the recurring controversy over “candidate unification” during every election, regardless of party lines. Some people prioritize candidate unification over the candidate’s own vision or policies or those of their party. Usually, the side that finds it difficult to win without unification takes the initiative. A representative case is Ahn Cheol-soo, the preliminary candidate of the People’s Party. Recent cases that seem like a “game” for candidate unification ultimately show a facet of “hollowed-out politics.” It is “political poverty” and nothing different from their own league.

The problem lies in the response of the main opposition party, the People Power Party. They have wasted precious time being dragged along by the candidate unification controversy. It is late but at least fortunate that they have drawn a line saying that creating a candidate within the party comes first. However, the time wasted has become an original sin of failing to discover fresh candidates. The current reality, where “it’s the same people,” vividly shows that the party has not changed much even under the emergency committee system. This inevitably leads to a decline in public interest.

Even after the People Power Party decides on a candidate, it will not be able to avoid the unification controversy with preliminary candidate Ahn (or preliminary candidate Geum Tae-seop). Unless the conclusion is, as Emergency Committee Chairman Kim Jong-in boldly stated, “it’s fine to go with a three-way race,” most expect candidate unification as a given.

Then, they must endure a decisive dilemma. If the People Power Party’s preliminary candidate with 103 seats loses to Ahn, the preliminary candidate of the People’s Party with only 3 seats, the status of the main opposition party becomes a “comedy.” Complaints and criticisms about what the emergency committee has done in 10 months will pour in. It is also disadvantageous for consolidating the support base. It could even become a negative factor in the Busan mayoral election.

Conversely, if the People Power Party’s preliminary candidate wins, they will face fundamental limits in expanding their base. This is because it will be difficult for centrist voters to readily approach those who have “returned to the old Saenuri Party.” This will lead to a split in the centrist group and could ultimately work to the advantage of the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, if the People Power Party wins, it would be a tremendous achievement, and even if they lose, it is on a completely different level than not fielding a candidate at all. For next year’s presidential election, it is essential that the People Power Party fields a candidate.

The candidate unification issue facing the People Power Party could potentially drive the party into a major crisis. In the power struggle during negotiations, the People Power Party is fundamentally at a disadvantage. This is because they cannot escape criticism that they do not live up to their size. It would be fortunate if they win, but the risk is too great if they lose. Therefore, they should not have been dragged into the candidate unification frame from the beginning. They should have focused more on self-strengthening and personnel innovation while looking toward next year’s presidential election. Although it is quite late, there is still time. If regime change is the goal, they should not only look at the immediate battle ahead. I hope they realize that losing much for little gain can be fatal.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.