단상斷想

On October 27, the Democratic Party of Korea held a closed-door general meeting of lawmakers and agreed to pursue a parliamentary investigation into a sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the first time in constitutional history. At the meeting, some lawmakers argued for immediate impeachment, but the leadership chose to first secure evidence through a parliamentary investigation, stating that the possibility of the impeachment motion being upheld by the Constitutional Court should also be considered.

After the general meeting, the focus of the investigation gradually became more specific. Initially, the issues raised were the refusal to re-recommend Supreme Court justices, the refusal to take an oath as a witness during the parliamentary audit, and suspicions of improper execution of business promotion expenses and cash incentives. Later, suspicions of the Supreme Court's remand of President Lee's case and the delay in Ms. Kim Keon-hee's trial were added. Then, on October 30, when Senior Spokesperson Park Sung-joon announced that the focus of the parliamentary investigation would be on “actions during the December 3, 2024 rebellion,” what was discussed at the Supreme Court's late-night executive meeting on the day of martial law emerged as a key issue.

The Democratic Party of Korea plans to investigate the circumstances under which the special prosecutor for rebellion and the comprehensive special prosecutor dismissed or rejected the complaint against Chief Justice Cho. The schedule is set to report the parliamentary investigation request at the plenary session on November 5, approve the plan at the plenary session on November 12 or 19, and begin the investigation in early December.

However, the conditions facing the parliamentary investigation are not easy. Within the party, Supreme Council member Lee Sung-yoon demanded immediate impeachment, saying, “Our party's response is too lax,” while skepticism also emerged that not much new information would be revealed. The People Power Party has defined this parliamentary investigation as “barbaric violence” and an intimidation of the judiciary to protect the president, and has announced a filibuster. Within the judiciary, the possibility of filing a constitutional dispute or refusing to cooperate with the parliamentary investigation is even being discussed.

In addition, public opinion is not favorable. Even in an ARS survey conducted by Opinion Survey Kkot, run by pro-government broadcaster Kim Eo-jun, from October 30-31, disapproval of impeachment was 52.2%, 7.4 percentage points higher than approval at 44.8%. In a telephone interview (CATI) survey conducted during the same period, approval was 47.9% and disapproval was 47.8%, showing a close split.

However, it is also pointed out that it is difficult to interpret these results solely as a change in public sentiment, given that in surveys conducted by Kkon on October 9-10 and 16-17, support for impeachment was dominant at 50.8% and 51.3% respectively, after specific allegations such as fraudulent use of business promotion expenses and improper payment of incentive bonuses were first presented. This ARS survey was conducted on 1,005 adult men and women nationwide, with a sample error of ±3.1 percentage points at a 95% confidence level and a response rate of 1.8%. Further details can be found on the National Election Survey Deliberation Commission website.

Even in Kim Eo-jun's Kkon poll, negative public opinion on Cho Hee-dae's impeachment is ahead.

These survey results demonstrate that even within the progressive camp, opinions are divided regarding the impeachment of Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae. It appears to be a signal that public opinion is approaching the impeachment of Chief Justice Cho with caution. Furthermore, as Chief Justice Cho's term ends on June 5 next year, there is still a possibility that if the Constitutional Court's deliberation is prolonged, it could end in dismissal after his retirement, similar to the case of former Chief Judge Lim Seong-geun in 2021.

Nevertheless, the fact that surveys which specifically publicized the allegations showed over half in favor of impeachment, and over half also responded that a parliamentary investigation is necessary, demonstrates that public judgment can change as they become aware of the true nature of the issue. The answer to why a parliamentary investigation is needed lies precisely here.

However, the current overall sentiment within the Democratic Party is cautious regarding the impeachment of Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae. In contrast, the Jo Guk Innovation Party is relatively quite active in advocating for Chief Justice Cho's impeachment. While the Democratic Party is being cautious, stating that as the ruling party, they have no choice but to be prudent, the Jo Guk Innovation Party argues that they should push forward without hesitation.

On October 30, Shin Jang-sik, leader of the Rebuilding Korea Party, who appeared on Kim Eo-jun's News Factory, aimed at fellow guest Rep. Park Ju-min, saying, "Why can't you say it? Impeachment." In response, Rep. Park Ju-min defended himself, saying, "No, I have been talking about impeachment all along." This scene is symbolic of the mixed reactions within the progressive camp regarding the impeachment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae. While the Rebuilding Korea Party is boldly playing the role of an "icebreaker" and setting the tone, Democratic Party lawmakers are hesitant and unable to openly agree with it.

Even Representative Park Ju-min's scene of making an excuse that wasn't an excuse, saying, "I've been talking about impeachment all along," was pitiful to watch. The current ruling party is so intimidated that Representative Park Ju-min, a three-term lawmaker and potential presidential candidate, is offering such a lame excuse. It's also unclear since when the Rebuilding Korea Party became the "Cho Hee-dae impeachment arbiter" for Democratic Party lawmakers.

Is the Democratic Party so idle that it even worries about the approval rating of moderates?

Why is the Democratic Party so defensive and passive regarding the impeachment of Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae? Most voices express concern about the defection of swing voters, but the current approval rating of the Democratic Party is not high enough to worry about "even" swing voters. It is on a downward trend across almost all age groups and most regions nationwide.

In this situation, would it be meaningful to adjust the tempo by conducting a parliamentary investigation into Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae instead of impeachment? It's all the same whether you die on Hansik or Cheongmyeong. It would be understandable if the Democratic Party's approval ratings were terrible despite having focused entirely on public welfare and silently carried out reform tasks since the inauguration of the Lee Jae-myung administration.

However, the Democratic Party's ability to pursue policies and implement reform agendas as the ruling party has been a failure so far. There is no excuse for losing the lead in approval ratings even to the People Power Party, which is composed of forces that caused internal strife.

Democratic Party lawmakers are also delaying a decision on the impeachment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae, citing various reasons. However, what Democratic Party lawmakers must clearly realize is that they should have a sense of history and public responsibility for the majority seats in the National Assembly that the people have given them for nearly 10 years.

A sense of history is an attitude of understanding the historical meaning of the era one lives in, being aware of the future consequences of present choices, and acting accordingly. It's not just about remembering the past, but also realizing what responsibilities that past demands of us today. For Democratic Party lawmakers, it means confronting the wounds left on the constitutional order by the December 3rd martial law and fulfilling the responsibilities commensurate with being a political force entrusted with a majority of seats in the National Assembly.

The historical duty that Democratic Party lawmakers must now undertake is not to calculate the practical benefits of impeachment, but to reveal and record, in the name of the National Assembly, what the head of the judiciary did and did not do on the night of the December 3rd martial law. Regardless of immediate public opinion or the Constitutional Court's conclusion, this is the obligation that the legislature of this era must fulfill before history.

Do not let the absolute opportunity of a majority of seats slip away due to negligence and dereliction of duty.

The eradication of forces involved in the rebellion is still a distant goal. Not only is the judiciary's trend unusual, with external 'masterminds' who plotted the rebellion in a hamburger shop being acquitted, but the theory of Yoon Suk-yeol and Kim Keon-hee's responsibility for the rebellion is also being whitewashed as a 'conservative salvation theory,' misleading public opinion.

In this situation, Democratic Party lawmakers must have a clear sense of the problem regarding Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae's past actions of using judicial vested interests to defend the forces involved in the rebellion. In particular, the Democratic Party is helplessly enduring Chief Justice Cho's moves to actively exercise his power of appointment to politically damage President Lee Jae-myung and the progressive camp, and his de facto leadership of sabotage, such as not re-recommending Supreme Court justices.

This is because Democratic Party lawmakers have lost their sense of historical calling and even lack self-confidence in eradicating the forces involved in the rebellion. Concerns about declining approval ratings are merely the most convenient and arbitrary excuses the ruling party can offer. Will the ruling party's approval ratings rise even if Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae is not pressured and his term is comfortably guaranteed?

The point where Democratic Party lawmakers must most unite their party's stance now is to clearly hold Cho Hee-dae, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the judicial establishment accountable for their anti-historical actions. If they make political judgments based on approval ratings, they might avoid an immediate crisis, but they could ultimately be shunned by the progressive camp in the 2028 general election.

Furthermore, the eradication of deep-rooted evils in the judiciary is a historical task that Democratic Party lawmakers must undertake along with pushing for the impeachment of Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae. Compared to the legislature, which undergoes public scrutiny and selection every four years, the judiciary has virtually been a 'lawless zone.' Unmonitored power and vested interests inevitably corrupt. It's not about theoretical discussions that there are many problems with the judicial establishment, but about the elected power fulfilling the public's command to scrutinize the judiciary through specific verification data.

In this regard, the current parliamentary investigation into Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae must be recognized as a thorough verification process of the judicial establishment commanded by the people. As the Democratic Party dedicates itself to the parliamentary investigation of Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae, the public will naturally realize the necessity of impeachment. It's worth recalling that in previous polls, when specific allegations were stated and impeachment was asked, the approval rate was high.

I hope that Democratic Party lawmakers do not make the mistake of committing a sin against history. In particular, I earnestly hope that they do not squander the absolute opportunity of holding a majority of seats in the National Assembly, entrusted by the people for over 10 years, through negligence and dereliction of duty. I also hope they keep in mind that approval ratings react coldly when a political party fails to do its job properly.