[Insight & Opinion] The Democratic Party and "Lee Jaemyung's Democratic Party"

Not long ago, Seol Hoon, a member of the Democratic Party, told Innovation Committee Chair Kim Eun-kyung to study the identity of the Democratic Party. This was a criticism of the Innovation Chair, who viewed critical voices within the Democratic Party as targets for innovation. He said, “The Democratic Party is a party where diverse voices coexist and collective intelligence democracy has blossomed.” Of course, the party name “Democratic Party” is not a proper noun that guarantees historicity. There have been several changes in party names, as well as realignments and mergers of political forces, and the characteristics and directions of the party have varied slightly each time. Ultimately, it is a matter of concern about the identity of today’s Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party boasts its history by tracing back to the Democratic Party of 1955. It is a party history that claims to be the legitimate successor of the Korean opposition party that was at the center of the democratization struggle during the dictatorship era. Of course, that Democratic Party did not continue unchanged to the present Democratic Party. There were changes in mergers and splits. The Democratic Party was the ruling power of the Second Republic after the April 19 Revolution but lasted only about nine months due to the May 16 coup in 1961, and there were breaks and reorganizations through the Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan regimes. Later, it was reestablished around Kim Dae-jung and Kim Young-sam during the democratization process.

During the military regime, the so-called legitimate opposition forces faced two major turning points after democratization. The first was the three-party merger in 1990. The Kim Young-sam faction, one pillar of the democratization forces, merged with the old ruling forces. It was a split within the democratization forces. The other was the founding of the Uri Party in 2003. Although it was a split from the Millennium Democratic Party, it was essentially a reorganization of the leading forces. The party changed from Kim Dae-jung’s party to Roh Moo-hyun’s party. The Uri Party effectively failed and was dissolved near the end of the Roh Moo-hyun administration. However, in 2011, Moon Sung-geun, Moon Jae-in, Han Myeong-sook, and others launched an external unification movement and rose again as the central opposition force under the Democratic United Party.

The party shifted from the old democratization movement forces to a party centered on Roh Moo-hyun supporters and the ’86 activist generation. The direct roots of today’s Democratic Party lie in this Uri Party. Of course, the current Democratic Party under leader Lee Jae-myung also shows other characteristics.

During the last presidential election, candidate Lee Jae-myung said he would create not the Democratic Party of Lee Jae-myung but “Lee Jae-myung’s Democratic Party,” but he faced backlash and quietly withdrew the statement. However, nowadays, it is undeniably “Lee Jae-myung’s Democratic Party.” The hardline faction that considers criticism of Lee Jae-myung as sacrilege leads the party atmosphere. In the past, charismatic individuals like Kim Dae-jung and Kim Young-sam dominated their parties. However, the protection by the “Gaeddal” (literally “dog daughters,” a nickname for Lee’s female supporters) is on a different level. Times have changed. As the approval ratings show, the critical image is overwhelming. It is a shield party carrying Lee Jae-myung’s judicial risks, a quasi-religious party that does not tolerate dissent and attacks critics as “subak” (literally “watermelon,” a derogatory term implying hypocrisy). Regarding Lee Jae-myung’s leadership, the argument is that there is no alternative and that opposition suppression is the reason for confrontation.

Today’s innovation task for the Democratic Party is clear. The dedication and morality that were assets of the democratization movement have long been exhausted. Unlike the democratization struggle that fought the dictatorship as an absolute evil, the party must face the challenges of the post-democratization era, which include coexistence and inclusion of diversity. The party’s closed structure, which has become like a quasi-religious group, is anti-democratic and outdated. Unless the Democratic Party’s problem of being held hostage by judicial risks is resolved, there is no hope except for the reflexive expectations following the failure of the regime. The Democratic Party, held hostage by judicial risks, must realize that beyond shielding Lee Jae-myung, it is actually playing a shielding role for the Yoon Seok-youl government.

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

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