[Why&Next] Lee Jae-myung's Hunger Strike with No Exit... Must He Collapse for It to End?

16th Day of Fasting, Lee's Physical Functions Rapidly Decline
Supporters' Movements Grow Intense Amid Prolonged Fasting
Former President Moon Seeks Exit Strategy

On the 15th, Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, continued his 'indefinite hunger strike' for the 16th day. Currently, Lee's condition has rapidly deteriorated to the point where he remains lying down even when visitors come. The medical staff who treated him warned, "Typically, fasting beyond 10 to 14 days reaches a limit considering medically irreversible damage," urging him to stop the hunger strike. However, Lee remains steadfast in his determination to "endure." Where is the exit for this hunger strike, as Jung Cheong-rae, a senior member of the Democratic Party, said, "It only ends when he collapses"?

[Image source=Yonhap News]

16th Day of Hunger Strike... How Long Will It Continue Despite Health Warning Lights?

As the hunger strike passed the two-week mark, red flags have been raised regarding Lee's health. It is reported that from the third day of fasting, despite the scorching heat, he drank warm water due to chills. Medical staff have expressed opinions that the hunger strike should be stopped immediately. On this day, Cheon Jun-ho, chief secretary to the party leader, told reporters at the National Assembly main building, "Lee's overall physical functions have severely deteriorated, especially his fasting blood sugar levels are very low, putting his health in a very dangerous state," adding, "Medical staff have recommended Lee's hospitalization." However, Lee remains resolute in continuing the hunger strike. It is said that unless Lee changes his stance, hospitalization cannot be forced.

One of the most frustrating aspects inside and outside the Democratic Party is the difficulty in finding an exit. If Lee does not stop the hunger strike, someone must persuade him to end it or decide on forced termination, but this is not easy. On this day, opposition party lawmakers visited Lee to appeal for the cessation of the hunger strike. Lawmakers Kim Seong-joo, Kim Seong-hwan, Kim Yong-min, Nam In-soon, Min Hyung-bae, Park Joo-min, Baek Hye-ryun, Shin Jeong-hoon, Yoon Young-duk, Lee Dong-joo, Lee Hak-young, and Joo Cheol-hyun held placards with the phrase "Now we will fight!" urging Lee to stop fasting. Senior figures from civil society, including Father Ham Se-woong, also visited Lee. Father Ham urged the cessation, saying, "You have to be alive to fight," and "The opponent (government and ruling party) is not moved by Lee's hunger strike, so we must join together in other ways."

As the situation worsened, supporters' actions became more extreme. On this day, a man in his 70s, Mr. Kim, attempted self-harm in front of the party leader's office but was stopped by National Assembly security staff. It is known that he tried to write a blood letter by injuring his hand but was restrained. The day before, a woman in her 50s wielded scissors in front of the tent protest site, injuring two police officers.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

Voices calling for an exit from former President Moon Jae-in are also growing louder. Former National Intelligence Service Director Park Ji-won said in an MBC radio interview, "I think it would be good if President Moon comes to Seoul within a few days to dissuade the hunger strike." Earlier, on the 13th, Moon sent former Blue House Chief of Staff Noh Young-min to convey the intention to stop the hunger strike. On the 19th, a '9.19 Pyongyang Joint Declaration 5th Anniversary Commemorative Academic Symposium' will be held in Yeouido, and there is attention on whether former President Moon will attend and meet with Lee.

There is also analysis that next week will be a critical point physically. Eom Kyung-young, director of the Era Spirit Research Institute, said, "Usually, the second week of fasting is the dangerous turning point, and if one passes that, it is said they can continue for more than a week," adding, "That would bring it to the early 20s in days." He said, "I believe Lee's hunger strike had three goals: strengthening party control, raising party approval ratings, and expressing the prosecution's lawlessness at the Chuseok table," and "It seems the goals have been roughly achieved. The mood against the arrest warrant vote is also growing. Considering this, I think the hunger strike will stop in the early to mid-next week."

"Why Fast?"... The Concise Hunger Strikes of YS and DJ

Although Lee is being pushed to an extreme situation, the issue that has followed him like a label since the beginning of the hunger strike?"Why fast?"?remains unresolved. Jin Joong-kwon, a special professor at Kwangwoon University, criticized Lee on CBS Radio on the 13th, saying, "I don't know why he is starving." He pointed out, "The problem is that the public does not know why this person is fasting. I don't understand why. The message is unclear." He continued, "There should be a specific goal, but is it just 'Yoon Seok-yeol government, do well, I will fast until you do well'? That's absurd."

Politicians' hunger strikes have been used as a last resort by the side without the initiative in conflicts between ruling and opposition parties to enforce their will. Each time, the 'purpose' of the hunger strike was clear, so the end was also clear. Former President Kim Young-sam, as opposition party leader in 1983, protested the dictatorship of the Chun Doo-hwan regime, demanding the establishment of democracy, improvement of the election system for political transparency, and social integration, conducting a 23-day hunger strike. This led to uniting the democratization camp and the direct election constitutional amendment. Former President Kim Dae-jung fasted for 13 days in 1990 demanding the full implementation of local autonomy, leading to the introduction of local autonomy. Former President Moon Jae-in fasted for 9 days in 2014 urging the enactment of the Sewol Special Law, which later passed the National Assembly plenary session.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

The difficulty for the Democratic Party and civil society in calling for Lee to stop fasting lies in this point. Lee declared an indefinite hunger strike demanding ▲a public apology from the president for destroying people's livelihoods and democracy ▲a clear stance opposing Japan's contaminated water discharge and filing a case with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ▲a comprehensive government reform and cabinet reshuffle. There seems to be no end in sight. For this reason, even within the party, reactions such as "The public feels it is all about shielding (Lee)" (Rep. Lee Won-wook), "The hunger strike does not seem very appropriate to control President Yoon's reckless and arbitrary actions" (Rep. Lee Sang-min), and "In the past, YS or DJ had clear and simple hunger strike goals, but this time it is vague" (Rep. Jo Eung-cheon) have emerged.

Political Effects of Lee Jae-myung's Hunger Strike?

Nevertheless, there is analysis that Lee's hunger strike has brought considerable political effects. First, it has consolidated his support base. According to Gallup's regular poll on the 8th, the Democratic Party's approval rating rose 7 percentage points from the previous week to 34%. This was attributed to the effect of Lee's hunger strike. Attention is also drawn to the fact that a 'sympathy theory' is emerging within the party ahead of the arrest warrant vote. This can be understood from the question "Why fast now?" According to political circles, the prosecution is expected to request an arrest warrant early next week. If so, the request for Lee's arrest consent will be submitted to the National Assembly in the latter half of the week. The Speaker of the National Assembly must report this at the first plenary session after receiving the request and hold a vote within 72 hours. If the vote is not held within 72 hours, it can be processed at the first plenary session thereafter. Accordingly, there is a possibility that the arrest consent request will be reported at the plenary session on the 21st and voted on the 25th, or reported at the plenary session on the 18th during the negotiation group leaders' speech by Democratic Party floor leader Park Kwang-on and then submitted on the 21st.

The Democratic Party is not currently discussing the vote on Lee's arrest consent request. Although party members urged Lee to stop fasting at the party meeting the day before, they have not raised discussions about the arrest consent request. This is because it is obvious that the party will fall into confusion again between the pro-Lee faction advocating rejection and the anti-Lee faction saying "no more shielding controversies." However, considering the sympathy for Lee, who appeared twice before the prosecution during the hunger strike, the possibility of rejection is gaining weight. Until now, the prevailing opinion was that the party needed to regain trust lost by voting for the approval of the arrest consent request, but as Lee's hunger strike prolonged, it became burdensome to insist on unconditional approval. The emergence of 'sympathy theory' within the party comes from this background. Ultimately, this is why there is talk that the hunger strike was declared with this schedule in mind, just before the expected vote on the arrest consent request in the September regular session.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

Park Beom-gye, chairman of the Democratic Party's Countermeasures Committee against Prosecutorial Dictatorship and Political Oppression, argued at the recent party meeting, "We cannot hand Lee Jae-myung over to them (the prosecution)," effectively advocating rejection of the arrest consent request. In response, Jo Eung-cheon, an anti-Lee faction member, appeared on CBS Radio's 'Kim Hyun-jung's News Show' and said, "It's cringeworthy," adding, "The talk of defending (Lee) and rejecting the (arrest consent request) can now be openly and strongly expressed." This is interpreted as the intensification of the party's rejection stance as Lee's hunger strike prolongs. He also said, "It would be best if (Lee) confidently walks in, gets the warrant dismissed, and asks for approval (of the arrest consent request)."

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