[Insight & Opinion] Is Relinquishing Parliamentary Immunity the Answer to Party Innovation?

The Innovation Committee of the Democratic Party has demanded that Democratic Party lawmakers pledge to relinquish their immunity from arrest as the first step toward reform. Although there has long been public criticism of the abuse of parliamentary immunity, recent criticism has mainly targeted the Democratic Party. This is because Representative Lee Jae-myung was at the center of the controversy, and only Democratic Party members have enjoyed this privilege since the 21st National Assembly. Recently, Representative Lee himself announced that he would give up this immunity. The Innovation Committee proposed adopting the pledge to abolish it as the party's official stance, even though the party is still debating the issue.

As is well known, parliamentary immunity from arrest, along with parliamentary privilege, is enshrined in our Constitution. It was introduced as a privilege to secure the independence of parliamentary politics from royal or dictatorial powers during the development of representative democracy. However, as the rule of law and democracy have become more established, the necessity of this privilege as a protective measure for parliamentary politics has diminished. Instead, criticism and concerns about the abuse of this privilege have increased. Some countries, such as the Netherlands and Norway, do not have immunity from arrest at all. Even where the privilege exists, it is applied in a limited manner so as not to interfere with normal parliamentary activities. Since the adoption of the Constitution, which granted parliamentary immunity as a constitutional right, and despite changes in arrest and detention procedures such as the introduction of warrant reviews, the requirements and procedures for parliamentary consent to arrest have hardly changed.

There is a majority skeptical view on whether lawmakers should be granted special privileges different from ordinary citizens. Over time, various politicians and parties have pledged to abolish immunity from arrest. However, under the Yoon Suk-yeol administration, the Democratic Party has argued that political oppression and prosecutorial dictatorship make the use of this privilege inevitable. Even Representative Lee Jae-myung, who previously said immunity was unnecessary, claimed during his candidacy that the privilege was needed. He said that if he lost during the presidential or by-election campaigns, he would be framed for crimes. Whether as a defense against 'prosecutorial dictatorship' or as a shield using privilege, he emphasized the necessity of parliamentary immunity. Then, recently, he announced his intention to give up this privilege.

If specific measures against the abuse of privileges are established through amendments to the National Assembly Act, it would help restore trust in parliamentary politics. In fact, before controversies over shielding through privileges, the fundamental cause of distrust lies in lawmakers' illegal corruption. In this regard, party reform should focus on enhancing the morality and competence of the 'good' members produced by parties. We must not overlook that the recent political climate, where loyalists and fervent supporters of party leaders dominate, has pushed lawmakers' morality and qualifications to the background. Of course, the Democratic Party Innovation Committee started with the imperative motive to reform the Democratic Party's problems that the Lee Jae-myung leadership has not resolved. It is an Innovation Committee operating under the current leadership, not an emergency committee replacing it. Whether it can bring about innovation that transcends this self-contradictory situation remains to be seen.

A political party itself is neither a value nor a purpose. It is a tool for good politics. However, recently, political parties, which are tools for the people, have instead taken the people hostage. The duopoly system, where the two major parties coexist and thrive despite being flawed, is the target of reform. A competitive democracy where good parties grow and poor parties are eliminated must function. Only then can healthy democracy within parties also be revived.

Kim Man-heum, Chair Professor at Hansung University, Former Director of the National Assembly Research Service

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