The Platform

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions …

Written By Jonathan Chiarella

Elections for the ROK’s National Assembly are in April. It could be the most contested election in the 6th Republic; several parties have formed with little time for attrition or unification. A tome of Korean parties by Sim Ji-yeon catalogs the constant cycle of party splits and reunifications (due to the unstable nature of parties across coups, wars and a domination of “celebrities.”)

Currently, there is the increasingly-divided conservative party, Saenuri, as well as the chief opposition, “Deo Democratic Party” (center-left), along with the smaller Justice Party (leftist hodge-podge against domineering leaders of old UPP) and Labor Party (with no national seats at the moment, also arguably ultra-leftist: for example, is against national liberation and popular fronts). However, many have left the “Deo Democrats” to form new parties. The splintering of the “Democratic” parties and re-unification under new leadership has been a recurring phenomenon, but less likely this time.

Jump back to the 2012 presidential election. Millionaire newcomer Ahn Cheol-su did not have a nice settlement with Moon Jae-in when both men tried running as the sole anti-Saenuri candidate. Ahn dropped out of the race and was reluctant to try to transfer his support base to Moon. The UPP candidate (the majority of the anti-imperialist left, forcibly disbanded December 2014) participated in official debates, but later withdrew to not split the vote. Korea has no run-offs in any of its public elections. In 1987, the successor to retiring dictator Chun, Roh Tae-woo, won with 37% of the vote due to a 4-way split. Had there been a run-off, Kim Young Sam would surely have won. The lesson was quickly learned, splitting the vote means very unpopular candidates can win.

Ahn started his “New Politics” alliance in February 2014, which merged with the Democrats in 2014. Ahn won an Assembly seat in Seoul in by-elections and directed the newly merged party but bungled local elections and receded, only to dramatically leave and prepare another “new” party in December 2015. Still little word of concrete policy—just vague reforms and a conservative stance on the ROK-U.S. alliance.

Before Ahn left, though, a rump party had emerged from the Democrats who did not merge with Ahn. Additionally, several Honam-centred groupings appeared late last year: Cheon Jeogn-bae, Park Ju-seon (centrist) and Park Jun-yeong all have new parties forming.

Diversity is great, but how does it translate into electoral results? If the vote is split across multiple candidates in many places, you could have conservatives win in most districts, with 40 percent vs. 32 percent and 28 percent, yielding it total control. Winning 60% of the local vote in over half of the districts (but nowhere else) would give control to a party that only has the support of 30% voters nationally.

We should expect or hope for competition in Honam province, but for opposition candidate unification elsewhere, as experts advocate. Is diversity only practical in Honam? What is to be done?

In countries with larger populations and distinct regions like Germany, the United Kingdom and America, people want representatives from their communities. Pure proportional representation and at-large voting may fly in some local governments, but never nationally. A “mixed-member” system could help ensure party diversity and provide an assembly representing both a microcosm of society and various locales. The number of PR seats would have to grow.

Also, a party that wins “too many” seats in districts (due to vote-splitting or strategic concentration of support) would have these “excess” seats count against its PR seat allotment. The parallel vote for one’s local representative in the Assembly would be unchanged and opened to independents. There is then no need for vote-ranking or arranging second-round elections for scores of districts. Such reforms would be applauded by political scholar Duverger, who studied proven methods to ensure party plurality. Also, Western democracies post-WW2 have greater voter participation when there are party and policy diversity and few “dead votes” (votes to a candidate/party who is a sure winner/loser).

Korea’s political field is more dynamic than that of several others. No “catch-all” party exist, as trends and the system preclude entrenched duopoly. Campaign contributions are regulated. Party members pay dues. But we need more to encourage diversity while removing penalties for not voting strategically.