[The Editors' Verdict]Why Isn't a Second Oh Se-hoon Emerging?

There is someone who proved that emptiness in politics is a warm-up process for fulfillment. The person who declared he would not run in the 17th general election on January 6, 2004. That politician is Oh Se-hoon. A first-term lawmaker from the Grand National Party representing Seoul Gangnam-eul district. Oh Se-hoon, a former lawyer, was a promising next-generation figure. However, he chose not to run for re-election. At that time, he was only 43 years old. It was too early to talk about retirement.

The reason Oh Se-hoon's choice attracted attention is that he was recognized as an icon of political reform. He led the revision of political relations laws, known as the Oh Se-hoon Act, changing the foundation of Korean politics. It was perhaps natural that Oh Se-hoon was selected as Person of the Year in 2004.

Although Oh Se-hoon chose not to run that year, the public did not abandon him. He achieved the unprecedented feat of serving four terms as mayor of Seoul in South Korea. The reason for looking back on the past two decades is that a second Oh Se-hoon is needed now.

Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon. Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

원본보기 아이콘

The National Assembly convened a plenary committee for the first time in 20 years to reform the election system. Adjusting the current 300 seats in the National Assembly is a key topic of discussion. Opinions have emerged to either increase the seats to around 330 or reduce them to around 270. The plan sounds grand but lacks substance. The execution plan to fill the numerical spectacle is weak.

The public is negative about increasing the number of seats. Before asking to increase seats, shouldn't we consider the fundamental reason why public opinion is cold? Which citizen would respond positively if, without steady efforts to gain public consent, the request to increase seats suddenly comes one day?

The argument for reducing seats is equally transparent. Cutting 30 seats would directly hit less populated regions such as Yeongnam, Honam, Chungcheong, and Gangwon. How can the sense of loss in those areas, where it becomes difficult to expect the election of hometown-origin lawmakers, be soothed? The call for seat reduction based solely on numbers is nothing more than populism relying on political disgust sentiment.

What deserves attention is the attitude of the ruling and opposition parties toward election system reform. There is neither urgency nor tension to be found. Even if lawmakers make painstaking efforts, it is doubtful the public will open their hearts, as they have been too complacent so far. In fact, there was a way. The exemplary attitude of political leader Oh Se-hoon in 2004. The effort of self-sacrifice.

If influential politicians from both ruling and opposition parties had declared they would not run in the 22nd general election to emphasize the necessity of election reform, wouldn't the public have listened? The plenary committee convened after 20 years was the right time to practice relinquishing vested interests.

Although Oh Young-hwan, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, declared he would not run, the echo in Yeouido's political circles is faint. Is it because the minds of influential lawmakers are already focused on the April general election next year? A second Oh Se-hoon who throws himself for political reform is nowhere to be seen. While they verbally call for political reform, isn't this the result of selfishness reflecting their unwillingness to let go of the power they hold?

As the election season approaches, the misconception that voters will inevitably choose the incumbents is spreading like a trend. Why is the National Assembly plenary committee being ignored by the public? Isn't it because there are too many politicians who regard the 'lawmaker badge' given by the people as nothing more than a power accessory?

© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.