As presidential approval ratings decline, the leader of the ruling party has invoked the impeachment of former President Roh Moo-hyun. The focus has shifted from understanding why the public is disappointed to who is shaking the presidency. However, the ruling party, which holds a majority in the National Assembly, must address a different question: how much has it improved the lives of citizens with its significant power and resources?
On September 14, Kim Min-seok, leader of the Democratic Party, likened internal criticism of the president to the early signs of Roh's impeachment. He also directly criticized Gyeonggi Governor Lee Jae-myung's harsh remarks. The following day, he responded to comments from Cho Kuk, head of the Innovation Research Institute, who criticized the impeachment analogy, framing it as an attempt to undermine the president. The debate surrounding personnel and reform has shifted to whether it is about protecting or shaking the presidency.
It is true that internal conflicts can burden governance. There is a historical precedent where political allies participated in Roh's impeachment. However, it is not appropriate to link today’s criticisms to the early signs of impeachment. While touching on past wounds may rally the base, it does not provide a reason for the disillusioned public to return. Political metaphors cannot substitute for the answers needed by citizens concerned about housing prices and living costs.
In light of the president's declining approval ratings, what has the ruling party reflected upon? Discontent regarding personnel and policies is not solely the president's responsibility. The ruling party drafts legislation, reviews budgets, and adjusts policies through party-government consultations. It also participates in confirmation hearings for ministerial nominees. When it comes to legislation, is the ruling party merely a support organization for the president when results are questioned? If the president's judgment is flawed, the ruling party must also answer what it filtered out and corrected.
Critics within the ruling party echo similar sentiments. Governor Lee stated that the president is anxiously clinging to insurrectionist forces. Such remarks cannot monopolize the legitimacy of reform. If judicial reform is lacking, the ruling party must identify what is deficient in the laws and systems it designed and implemented, and propose alternatives. The intensity of criticism directed at the president does not absolve one of responsibility.
The reason the public entrusted a majority of seats is clear. They expect the ruling party to create laws it deemed necessary while in opposition and to resolve issues it promised to address upon taking power. This does not mean competing over how harshly to criticize the president or how resolutely to defend him. The question of what will be fixed amid fierce exchanges should not be obscured. If the aftermath of the debate only reveals which side one stood on, it would mean a waste of the ruling party's time.
Now, the ruling party must focus on the achievements of livelihood legislation. It should examine what gaps exist in protecting tenants' deposits and housing stability, why it takes so long for workers owed wages to receive their money, and what changes are needed to alleviate the burdens on small business owners. If new laws are necessary, they should be created, and if existing laws are ineffective, both enforcement and budgeting must be addressed. Simply passing a few bills is insufficient; the measure of success is whether the public's issues are genuinely resolved.
Every party claims to prioritize the public's livelihood. The difference lies in what issues are addressed first, how necessary resources are secured, and when effects will be realized. The party and government must present this order and timeline, negotiate in the National Assembly, and produce results, which is the essence of governing capability. A majority in the assembly is both a means to achieve this and a basis for holding greater responsibility when it fails.
Invoking 'Roh Moo-hyun's impeachment' may quiet internal dissent. However, it will not alleviate the burdens on grocery bills or the anxieties of tenants. While rallying the base may be a political achievement, it does not equate to governance success. The ruling party must focus on the challenging present rather than the public's uneasy memories. If it aims to protect the president, it must first create reasons for the public to support this administration.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.