What remains after a young politician's fall from office as minister
(Seoul = Yonhap News) Senior Reporter Seungwoo Lee = Recently, a young female politician in her mid-30s was nominated as a minister, and the scene of her failing to run due to controversy over her morality and qualifications was an embarrassing self-portrait and the current state of Korean politics. Young people in their 20s and 30s had ambivalent feelings of envy and anticipation as they watched the rapid success of young people their age, but in the end, they were left with only a sense of deprivation and betrayal. This young politician has claimed to be a 'flagship of fairness', 'a rival to the establishment', and a 'representative of the weak', but it turns out that he was a 'flagship of foul play' and 'a master of privilege'. He showed the typical example of a powerful person with vested interests no less than the old politicians of the past, and there were also cases where his usual words were different from his actual actions. The most severe anger and backlash among young people seems to be because they are disappointed by these self-contradictions and double standards.
There are quite a few things that are difficult to believe that a young politician with a 'young and clean' image has done. The fact that the leader of a public party supported by taxpayers' money appointed her husband to key party positions one after another was an act of public office that could not even distinguish between public and private affairs. Beyond the sadang, there was ridicule called 'family income party'. There were even suspicions of 'self-appointment' and 'secret family appointments' in which decisions on appointment to party positions were made only between the couple. His decision to break constitutional convention and maintain his proportional representation even if he became a minister was seen in the public's eyes as a trick to protect political parties' government subsidies and his position as a member of the National Assembly. There was even an internal revelation that a secret organization was established within the party and major party affairs were decided behind closed doors. Many other suspicions were raised, but there was no responsible and substantive explanation that respected the public's right to know.
Young people in their 20s and 30s who watched this seemed shocked. This is because I got the impression that young people who criticized the vested rights and outdated practices of established politics actually relied on privileges and expedients more than the older generation when it came to their own interests and interests. In particular, the fact that this young politician became a proportional representative member of the National Assembly for two consecutive terms amidst the shortcomings of the 'satellite party' and 'linked proportional representation system', which were criticized as a trick system rather than entirely on his own, further heightened the sense of loss among young people who are sensitive to 'fairness'. How do young people of the same age group who are low-level workers or have just risen to middle management view the situation in which they become re-elected lawmakers and are nominated as ministers without even putting up a party sign, and exercise unchecked power within the party? Wouldn't their shoulders slump further as they silently endure harsh pay and hard work? I am afraid that young people may fall into skepticism and cynicism.
Even now, we must reflect on the fundamental source that led to this happening. Despite the warnings of many experts and scholars that there would be fatal side effects ahead of the 2020 general election, this incident was predicted when an abnormal system called a semi-linked proportional representation system was introduced and a farce about the proliferation of satellite political parties was created in the aftermath. The biggest beneficiary of that system is the protagonist of this ministerial fallout. Although it showed the rare sight of coming under the umbrella of a major party under the pretext of being a minor party and receiving the gold badge only through proportional representation twice, it reminded us of the common sense that an absurd beginning usually ends with an absurd ending.
However, as much as we are outraged by this deformed behavior of the political world, there are questions we must ask ourselves. Who are the people who laid the groundwork for unreasonable politics in a sovereign democratic country that is neither a monarch nor a monarchy? Ultimately, the fundamental responsibility lies with the voters who have the power to judge. Although there were many opportunities to verify and judge before the general election, voters did not properly consider the unclear changes to the election system and unverified candidates. Even when tricks were rampant, I ignored them as if I had insensitivity. We have neglected our sacred rights and duties, and now it is time to bear the karma we have brought upon ourselves. In political philosophy, there is an adage that says, โThe greatest price for ignoring politics is being dominated by low-quality people.โ There is a saying that โevery citizen has a government commensurate with its levelโ. It's natural to throw stones at politicians, but let's think about who gave them power, starting with the voters.
