단상斷想

Since the launch of the Kim Min-seok Democratic Party of Korea leadership, the party's approval rating has moved in the opposite direction of the public promise to 'increase by 10 percentage points within 100 days of taking office.' The approval rating, which recorded in the low to mid-40s immediately after the party convention in mid-August, fell to the mid-30s (35-36%) in a Gallup Korea survey in October, and in a Realmeter survey (October 7-8), it plummeted by 7.0 percentage points from the previous week to 35.5%, allowing the People Power Party to overtake it. In a Media Tomato survey, the Democratic Party remained in the 36% range, and the Jo Guk Innovation Party entered the 9% range. The defection of progressives, people in their 40s, and those in the Seoul metropolitan area indicates not just a simple shift in floating voters but a cold reception from core supporters.

Oh Se-hoon's acquittal in the second trial, resolving the opposition's risk

This was crucially compounded by Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon's acquittal in the second trial on October 23. The 7th Criminal Division of the Seoul High Court overturned the first trial's guilty verdict (a fine of 10 million won) and acquitted Mayor Oh in the case of violating the Political Funds Act related to the alleged proxy payment for a public opinion poll by Myung Tae-kyun. The court ruled that the credibility of Myung Tae-kyun's statement, which was the key direct evidence, was difficult to accept, and that there was insufficient corroborating evidence. Had the first trial's verdict been upheld, it could have led to the loss of the mayoral position and a five-year disqualification from running for office, but this judicial risk was resolved in an instant. Within the conservative camp, there are evaluations that Mayor Oh has rapidly emerged as an alternative candidate for the next presidential election, which could act as a variable accelerating the lame duck period of the Lee Jae-myung administration. With the resurgence of a focal point for the opposition, the Democratic Party's declining approval rating and Chairman Kim's low job performance evaluation (25.6% positive, 67.6% negative according to recent Realmeter data) appear to be an even more serious leadership crisis.

Structural background of declining approval ratings

The structural reasons for the decline in approval ratings are a complex result of the coupling with President Lee Jae-myung's national performance evaluation, the controversy surrounding Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae, the DMZ security controversy, rising jeonse and apartment prices in the Seoul metropolitan area, and personnel reshuffles. In particular, the shift of some progressive voters to the Cho Kuk Innovation Party is a reaction to the Democratic Party's lack of 'reform clarity.' Differences in approach regarding the pace of prosecutorial and judicial reform, such as the separation of investigation and prosecution, and the impeachment of Cho Hee-dae, served as the catalyst. Even after the Innovation Party publicly called for joint action by revealing the impeachment motion, the Democratic Party's approval ratings stagnated or declined without a clear rebound. While the impeachment debate may have some effect in consolidating core supporters, it clearly has a dual nature, appearing as a 'political dispute' to swing voters and those experiencing real estate and economic anxiety, thereby accelerating their departure.

In addition, the relationship with the Cho Kuk Innovation Party served as another axis. Differences in approach regarding the pace of prosecutorial and judicial reform, such as the separation of investigation and prosecution, and the impeachment of Cho Hee-dae, served as a catalyst for some progressive voters to shift to the Innovation Party. The 7.0 percentage point increase in the Innovation Party's approval rating among progressive voters in just two weeks in the Media Tomato survey is not merely a temporary phenomenon, but shows that those demanding 'reform clarity' are frustrated with the Democratic Party's cautious stance. Even after the Innovation Party publicly called for joint action by revealing the impeachment motion against Cho Hee-dae, the Democratic Party's approval ratings stagnated or slightly declined without a clear rebound, while the Innovation Party continued its upward trend. This reveals the dual nature of the impeachment debate: even if it has some effect in consolidating core supporters, it is perceived as a 'political dispute' by swing voters and supporters in their 40s and the Seoul metropolitan area who are experiencing real estate and economic anxiety, thereby accelerating their departure.

Practical reasons for hesitating on impeachment

However, this phenomenon cannot be simply interpreted as 'not immediately pursuing impeachment.' The impeachment of Cho Hee-dae is an issue intertwined with judicial independence, separation of powers, legal requirements and evidence, and national stability. There are three realistic reasons why the Democratic Party is hesitant. First, effectiveness. With only about 8 months remaining in Chief Justice Cho's term, there is a judgment that the possibility of the Constitutional Court's acceptance after passing the plenary session is uncertain, and it would be difficult to manage the aftermath of a judicial vacuum during the period of suspension from duty. Second, the risk of backlash. If the People Power Party intensifies its offensive with the 'infringement of judicial independence' frame, it could increase resentment among moderates and swing voters, and the fact that a survey showed more opposition to resignation than support also backs this concern. Third, internal party dynamics. In a situation where hardliners and cautious views coexist, Chairman Kim officially opened discussions by saying, "We are practically reviewing all options," but showed an attitude of ordering opinion gathering centered on the floor and review after the parliamentary audit. This is a practical balance that does not ignore the demands of hardline supporters while trying to postpone actual initiation and voting as much as possible.

The problem is that this balance is no longer valid. With Oh Se-hoon's acquittal in the second trial resolving the opposition's judicial risks and the next presidential election structure becoming visible, the Democratic Party's indefinite postponement of the Cho Hee-dae issue is likely to increase disappointment among reform supporters and be perceived as a lack of leadership by the moderate class. While impeachment should not be pursued based on a strategic judgment that a strong stance is needed due to falling approval ratings, conversely, not even considering the possibility of legal responsibility due to the departure of the moderate class also leads to a loss of trust. In either case, it will be difficult for the Democratic Party to regain trust.

What is needed are clear procedures and judgment criteria

What is needed now are clear procedures and transparent judgment criteria. The reasons and evidence presented by those advocating for impeachment must be specifically verified, and if a parliamentary inquiry is necessary, its scope, data acquisition plan, schedule, and follow-up measures based on the results must be specified. If serious illegal acts are confirmed during the investigation process and it is determined that the constitutional requirements for impeachment are met, then pursuing impeachment prosecution, even at the cost of political burden, could be a responsible choice. If the requirements are insufficient, the reasons should be explained, and alternatives such as judicial administration improvement and legislative control should be presented. The important thing is not to predetermine the conclusion, but to objectively confirm whether it is a matter for which accountability can be demanded and to act according to that result.

Only this approach has the potential to persuade both the supporters who demand clear reform and the moderates who are concerned about judicial independence. This is because it can show supporters that reform is not being avoided, and give moderates confidence that actions are based on legal standards, not political retaliation. Even if sufficient grounds are presented, political backlash may occur. However, a party's credibility comes not from its ability to avoid all conflicts, but from its ability to manage unavoidable conflicts with consistent principles.

100-day report card and principled decision

The 100-day report card of the Kim Min-seok leadership cannot be evaluated solely by how many percentage points the approval rating has dropped. More important is how consistently the ruling party has connected the principles of reform with tangible results for the people's livelihoods. Regaining public trust cannot be achieved by merely consolidating party control and demonstrating political coordination skills. The impeachment of Cho Hee-dae is an issue symbolizing this crisis, and a turning point made even clearer by Oh Se-hoon's acquittal. If reasonable grounds are confirmed for serious illegality in the exercise of judicial power, accountability should not be abandoned on the grounds of respecting judicial independence. At the same time, legal requirements and evidence must be strictly verified to ensure that impeachment does not devolve into political retaliation or a means to reverse approval ratings. Kim Min-seok's choice must be a principled decision, not a postponement.

If CEO Kim indefinitely postpones the impeachment issue, the disappointment of supporters who expected reform will only grow. Conversely, if it is pushed through without sufficient verification, it could expand distrust among moderates and controversy over judicial independence. Therefore, neither an indefinite delay under the guise of caution nor a hasty decision driven by hardline views is the answer. The schedule for investigation and verification, the legal standards for impeachment judgment, and follow-up measures based on the outcome must be clearly presented and acted upon accordingly. If legal grounds are confirmed, impeachment should be pursued; otherwise, the reasons should be publicly explained, and other accountability measures should be prepared.

The Challenge Posed by Oh Se-hoon's Acquittal

Oh Se-hoon's acquittal in the second trial alleviated the opposition's judicial risks, but at the same time, it presented the Democratic Party with a task that can no longer be postponed. What CEO Kim Min-seok needs to restore is not the approval rating itself, but the trust that the Democratic Party promises reform and responsibly implements those promises. The impeachment of Cho Hee-dae and genuine judicial reform are turning points that will test that trust. What is needed is politics that respects judicial independence while holding serious illegal acts accountable, prioritizes public welfare while adhering to reform principles, and adjusts internal disagreements without avoiding final decisions. If the Democratic Party upholds these principles, even conflicts surrounding whether to pursue impeachment can be transformed into an opportunity for institutional reform. Conversely, if decisions are delayed by only calculating political advantages and disadvantages, the decline in approval ratings will not be a temporary crisis but will solidify into distrust of the ruling party's will for reform and leadership.

Principled Decision, Not Ambiguous Balance

What CEO Kim Min-seok needs now is not a vague balance that satisfies everyone. It is a principled decision that secures both legal legitimacy and political responsibility. In terms of public welfare, he must achieve tangible results that the public can feel, in judicial reform, he must clearly define the standards of illegality and responsibility, and within the party, he must transparently disclose the process and results of decisions. This is a realistic way to prevent the defection of supporters, restore the trust of moderates, and protect both the stability of the Lee Jae-myung administration and the Democratic Party's identity as a reform party. Now that the opposition has caught its breath with Oh Se-hoon's acquittal, Cho Hee-dae's impeachment and genuine judicial reform are not options, but essential conditions.