Why Are '86 Generation' Jeon Hae-cheol and Lee In-young Out of Sync on the Large Constituency System?

Jeon Hae-cheol "President Yoon Welcomes Review of Large Multi-member Constituency System"
Lee In-young "Is President Yoon Dreaming of Japan's LDP?"
Large Multi-member Constituency System, Catalyst for Factional Politics and Political Realignment

[Asia Economy Reporter Ryu Jeong-min] Jeon Hae-cheol and Lee In-young, prominent figures of the Democratic Party's 86 Generation (those born in the 1960s who attended university in the 1980s), are showing polar opposite stances on the issue of the large multi-member constituency system. This signifies the beginning of a rift within the Democratic Party following President Yoon Seok-yeol's mention of the large multi-member constituency system.

On the 4th, Jeon Hae-cheol stated on social media (SNS), "President Yoon Seok-yeol expressed the need to review the large multi-member constituency system in his New Year's interview, and Speaker Kim Jin-pyo presented a concrete schedule to finalize the electoral system reform by March. I welcome this."

On the other hand, Lee In-young posted on SNS the same day, "The president brought up the large multi-member constituency system. It is impure and suspicious. The multi-party system is just a facade; isn't the real intention to become like Japan's Liberal Democratic Party?" he fired a direct shot.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

The difference in views between the two politicians is intertwined with their political careers and future political paths. Although they share many similarities, they also have many differences. Both Jeon and Lee are members of the 86 Generation, symbolizing politicians who emerged from the student movements of the 1980s.

Jeon Hae-cheol, born in 1962, is two years older than Lee In-young, who was born in 1964. However, Lee In-young debuted earlier as a member of the National Assembly through the 17th general election in 2004, while Jeon Hae-cheol debuted through the 19th general election in 2012. Lee is a four-term lawmaker, and Jeon is a three-term lawmaker.

Both are senior lawmakers representing the Democratic Party, but their paths differ. Lee In-young holds symbolic significance as the first chairman of the National Council of Student Representatives (Jeondaehyeop). He entered politics after participating in the underground democratization movement.

In contrast, Jeon Hae-cheol passed the bar exam and pursued a career as a lawyer. He served as the senior secretary for civil affairs during the Roh Moo-hyun administration. Jeon is one of the so-called "Three Cheols" (Lee Ho-cheol, Yang Jeong-cheol, Jeon Hae-cheol), and the only current lawmaker among them. Jeon is classified as pro-Roh (pro-Roh Moo-hyun).

Meanwhile, Lee In-young is a representative figure of the Kim Geun-tae faction (GT faction). He is a politician who inherits the political philosophy of the late Kim Geun-tae, a symbol of the underground democratization forces within the Democratic Party. Other notable figures of the Kim Geun-tae faction include lawmaker Woo Won-shik and former Minister of Education Yoo Eun-hye.

When classifying the power structure within the Democratic Party, the so-called Jeon Hae-cheol group is much larger than Lee In-young's Kim Geun-tae faction. The Jeon Hae-cheol group supported candidate Lee Nak-yeon in the Democratic Party presidential primary. Jeon Hae-cheol has a somewhat strained relationship with the faction of party leader Lee Jae-myung in various respects.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

The arguments for and against the large multi-member constituency system by Jeon Hae-cheol and Lee In-young are related to their political philosophies. Jeon Hae-cheol pointed out, "Under the current single-member district system, which is a winner-takes-all structure, it is impossible to resolve extreme conflicts and confrontations in politics, and it is difficult to properly reflect the will of the people in election results."

Jeon said, "Various options that can guarantee proportionality and representation, such as the large multi-member constituency system or mixed-member proportional representation by region, need to be actively proposed in the political arena, and discussions to find the optimal alternative should be conducted promptly." While keeping multiple possibilities open, Jeon accepts the large multi-member constituency system with an open perspective, which differs from Lee In-young.

On the other hand, Lee In-young criticized, "The large multi-member constituency system is actually disadvantageous to political newcomers. It favors incumbents and well-known figures regardless of party lines, whether ruling or opposition, progressive or conservative. It benefits wealthy individuals and those with strong organizations."

Lee In-young said, "The best option is to maintain the single-member district system and increase the total number of seats to 350-400. The additional seats should mainly be proportional representation seats. Using the increased seats for the best loser system or regional proportional representation is also a method worth considering."

In particular, Lee warned, "Ultimately, the large multi-member constituency system will be distorted into an election strategy for the Yoon Seok-yeol administration and conservative forces, and further into a long-term ruling strategy." He is thus suspicious of the 'political intentions' behind the push for the large multi-member constituency system.

It is difficult to view the controversy over the large multi-member constituency system simply as a difference of opinion on electoral systems because it may be linked to political realignment and even constitutional amendments toward a parliamentary system. The possibility that the introduction of the large multi-member constituency system could expand factional politics is also a background for the divided opinions.

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