The recent shortage of ballots has escalated from a mere administrative error to a broader issue of trust in the election management system. This has prompted political discussions about reforming the Election Commission. However, current proposals are still overly focused on structural changes.
Some suggest integrating the Election Commission under the Ministry of the Interior and Safety or transferring the voting and counting responsibilities to the executive branch. While these ideas may seem persuasive when looking at examples from Japan and Germany, they are based on historical and social trust that may not be applicable to South Korea's current context.
In Japan, election management is handled by the Central Election Management Commission and local election commissions. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications is responsible for system design and administrative support but does not directly manage elections. Local government officials carry out practical voting tasks, and counting is conducted publicly at the local level, with party observers and citizen monitoring institutionalized to enhance procedural transparency.
Germany's Federal Returning Officer oversees elections, a position typically held by the head of the Federal Statistical Office. While utilizing executive infrastructure, the election management function operates independently by law. Actual execution is managed by state and local administrative bodies, with counting and result confirmation undergoing a multi-step verification process. Disputes are resolved through judicial procedures, reinforcing institutional trust in the results.
The commonality between these two countries is not merely the formal structure of the executive managing elections. Instead, the key lies in the design that ensures political neutrality and procedural trust while utilizing administrative organizations. An independent monitoring system, transparent procedures, and a clear accountability structure must work together, as these complex mechanisms underpin the legitimacy and stability of election management.
This structure is possible due to high institutional trust. In Japan, there is a strong acceptance of judicial rulings and administrative procedures regarding election disputes, and political accountability for illegal actions is robust. Similarly, Germany has tight judicial oversight centered around the Federal Constitutional Court, along with vigilant monitoring from political parties and civil society, which explains the rarity of election result disputes.
In contrast, South Korea faces a different situation. Recent years have seen repeated allegations of election fraud, undermining trust in election outcomes. Transferring election management to the executive branch in this context could likely spark new political controversies. While systems can be changed, trust cannot be easily transferred.
Moreover, elections are not merely administrative services; they are a core process that confers legitimacy to power. Changing the management structure amid lingering distrust will inevitably weaken acceptance of the results. It is crucial to recognize that the trust environment surrounding a system is more important than the design of the system itself.
The Constitution designates the Election Commission as an independent body for this reason. Following the fraudulent elections of March 15, the separation of elections from power was recognized as a key task for restoring democracy. Independence is not merely a matter of organizational form but an institutional safeguard built on historical experience.
Therefore, what is needed now is not a transfer of authority but a restoration of trust. The causes of the ballot shortage must be clearly identified, accountability established, and measures to prevent recurrence implemented. At the same time, the counting process and verification procedures should be transparently disclosed to create a structure that the public can accept.
Alternatives do exist. Improving the personnel structure of the Election Commission and institutionally enhancing the expertise of local officials responsible for voting tasks is one approach. This could involve utilizing administrative personnel like in Japan while combining judicial oversight and external monitoring as seen in Germany. This is a realistic choice that can enhance operational efficiency while maintaining independence.
The essence of an electoral system lies not in its structure but in trust. Reforms lacking trust may not lead to improvement but could instead mark the beginning of another cycle of distrust.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.