Politics enjoys metaphors as they can simplify complex realities. However, while metaphors can clarify, they can also obscure the truth. Recently, author Yoo Si-min used the terms 'expansion' and 'reconstruction' to critique President Lee Jae-myung.
Yoo argued that the Democratic Party's supporters desired 'expansion,' which would maintain the party's existing values while broadening its base. In contrast, he claimed President Lee is pursuing a 'reconstruction' that dismantles the current structure. He added that reconstruction requires the consent of existing residents.
Yoo's advice, framed as a heartfelt critique, deserves respect. The ruling party should face stricter scrutiny than the opposition, and the president must first heed internal criticism. Democracy thrives on criticism rather than applause.
However, it is essential to examine the underlying issues.
The core of this debate is not merely Yoo's criticism of the president. Critiquing the president is a fundamental right in a democracy. What matters is the premise of that criticism. Is the Democratic Party truly a house that operates on the consent of 'existing residents'? Is a political party a space owned by a specific faction? Is the ruling party a museum preserving its past identity, or a living political organization that continually adapts to changing times?
I believe it is the latter. Reflecting on the history of the Democratic Party in South Korea, it has been more about 'redesign' than 'expansion.'
The Democratic Party, led by Kim Dae-jung, was the focal point of the pro-democracy movement against military dictatorship. It addressed the era's challenges of peace, human rights, overcoming regional discrimination, and restoring democracy. That Democratic Party was a political space that faithfully reflected the spirit of the times.
However, the emergence of Roh Moo-hyun significantly altered the political language of the existing Democratic Party. He openly criticized regionalism, declared a break from vested interests, and initiated a new experiment in participatory politics. The rise of the reformist party and the founding of the Open Uri Party were not mere expansions of the existing Democratic Party; they were a complete redesign of the political blueprint.
At that time, there was considerable opposition. Many criticized the disruption of the existing Democratic Party. However, history remembers this as a political choice in response to changing times.
The Moon Jae-in administration followed a similar path. The Democratic Party that emerged after the Candlelight Revolution had a different character from its predecessors. The efforts to eradicate deep-rooted corruption, reform the prosecution, pursue income-led growth, and initiate the peace process on the Korean Peninsula were new political experiments that the previous Democratic Party had never experienced.
The Democratic Party has never existed in the same form. It has changed with each era. When leadership changes, policies shift, and as public demands evolve, the party's philosophy and strategy also adapt. This is the hallmark of a living political party.
Today’s Democratic Party cannot be an exception. The growth and practicality emphasized by the Lee Jae-myung administration, along with the focus on nurturing the artificial intelligence (AI) industry, expanding corporate investment, and pursuing a centrist strategy, are all subjects open to debate. However, defining the expansion itself solely as 'reconstruction' that dismantles the existing Democratic Party is an overly narrow interpretation of the ruling party's role.
The ruling party becomes a party for all citizens the moment the election concludes, rather than a party for a specific support base.
The president is in a similar position. While a candidate may be the president of their supporters, upon taking office, they become the president of all citizens.
Thus, policies aimed at the youth are necessary, as are efforts to persuade centrist voters. Improving the investment environment for businesses is essential, and it is natural to consider both growth and distribution. If all of this is interpreted as a betrayal of the existing support base, governance becomes impossible, even if electoral victory is achieved.
Politics exists not for elections but to improve the lives of citizens.
The term 'existing residents' raises another issue. Regardless of intent, it suggests that the Democratic Party is the property of a specific political faction.
However, a democratic party is not anyone's private property. The dedication of party members who have long supported the Democratic Party deserves respect. The history of generations who sacrificed for democratization is also invaluable. Yet, this should not prevent the participation of new generations.
A political party is a living organization. When young people join, the party must learn their language. As the centrist base grows, policies must change. When industrial structures shift, economic philosophies must adapt. When the international order changes, diplomatic and security strategies must be redesigned. A party that does not change cannot survive.
Global politics has followed a similar path. The British Labour Party was once centered around strong labor unions. However, Tony Blair declared 'New Labour,' significantly altering the party's identity. There was fierce backlash within the party, with many claiming it was no longer 'Labour-like.' Yet, Blair believed that if the times had changed, the party must change as well, and ultimately, the Labour Party succeeded in long-term governance.
The same applies to the U.S. Democratic Party. It underwent numerous internal debates while transforming from the traditional New Deal party to one that encompasses the information technology sector, Silicon Valley, the middle class, and youth. These examples illustrate that a party's vitality lies not in preserving the past but in adapting to changing times.
The German Christian Democratic Union and Japan's Liberal Democratic Party have also survived by repeatedly adjusting their policies. No democratic party in the world aims to preserve its past form.
However, this does not mean abandoning identity. Identity and strategy are different. Values must be upheld, but policies can change with the times.
Democracy is about adhering to principles while changing methods. In fact, unchanging politics is more dangerous.
The more significant issue is the reality facing South Korea today. We do not live in a leisurely era where we can debate 'expansion' versus 'reconstruction.'
AI is fundamentally altering industrial structures. Semiconductors have become national security assets, and data is the new oil. The U.S. and China are in direct conflict over technological supremacy, and supply chains have become central to national strategy. Low birth rates and an aging population threaten the sustainability of South Korea's economy. Potential growth rates continue to decline, and young people claim the ladder of opportunity has disappeared. Regions worry about extinction, and manufacturing faces a massive wave of AI transformation.
In this era, politics should not be about determining whose house it is. It should focus on how to redesign the house that is South Korea. Politics is not a technique for preserving the past; it is a technique for designing the future. Citizens do not want to see politicians referring to each other as 'existing residents.'
What citizens desire is a growing economy, stable jobs, fair opportunities, sustainable welfare, and a nation where the next generation can hold onto hope. That is the reason for the ruling party's existence.
Yoo Si-min's advice is worth listening to. Internal criticism aimed at ensuring the success of the administration is always necessary.
However, that criticism must also be reevaluated in light of changing times. The Democratic Party is not a party for a specific generation or faction. It is a public institution chosen, evaluated, and reshaped by the citizens of South Korea.
Therefore, what the Democratic Party needs is not just the consent of existing residents but the trust of the youth who have yet to cross the threshold, the empathy of centrist voters, and the expectations of future generations.
A political party does not exist to preserve an old house. It exists to build a house where citizens can live more safely and comfortably.
Whether it is expansion or reconstruction, that is a matter of method. What is more important is the essence of whose house it is.
This is the question that South Korean politics must now answer.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.