Politics is fundamentally about dialogue. More precisely, it is a process of having one’s logic and philosophy scrutinized in front of the public. Therefore, public debate is not merely an option in a democracy; it is almost an obligation.
The recent controversy surrounding the abolition of prosecutorial supplementary investigation rights brings this point back into focus. The supplementary investigation rights of prosecutors are not just a matter of authority; they serve as a final safeguard for verifying and supplementing police investigations that may be inadequate or flawed.
For victims, this can represent another opportunity to rectify injustices. Conversely, there are arguments advocating for its abolition, suggesting that prosecutorial powers should be curtailed and that investigations and prosecutions should be separated.
If both sides have their own arguments, what would be the most desirable solution? Engaging in public debate before the citizens.
Representative Han Dong-hoon proposed just that. He suggested that if the Democratic Party is advocating for the abolition of prosecutorial supplementary investigation rights, they should compete on the merits of their arguments in front of the public. Given that this is a stance often expressed by the Democratic Party leadership and its hardliners, there seemed to be no reason to decline.
However, for several days, no one responded. Ultimately, Lee Geon-tae, a former prosecutor and attorney for President Lee Jae-myung in the Daejang-dong case, expressed his willingness to participate in the debate. The venue was practically arranged, and even broadcasting schedules were mentioned.
Yet, within a day, the situation changed. Lee stated, “I will not participate in the debate, taking the opinions of party members seriously.” This raises a question: Was it truly due to the opinions of party members, or did they find the debate politically burdensome?
Public debates can lead to victories or losses. However, the decision to forgo a debate is a different matter altogether. The public tends to remember the attitude toward the debate more than the outcome itself.
Within the Democratic Party, there were analyses suggesting concerns that participating in the debate could inadvertently elevate Han Dong-hoon’s political profile. In other words, it was thought that it might merely boost his stature. But is that really the case? We believe it is not.
However, if such a judgment is indeed accurate, it becomes even more paradoxical. Whether it is the Democratic Party or Representative Lee, if they are confident in their arguments, the debate would be an excellent opportunity to communicate their positions to the public. Conversely, avoiding the debate could imply not that the opponent’s logic is correct, but rather that they lack confidence in their own.
Ultimately, politics is about the art of persuasion. This is especially true for issues like prosecutorial reform, which directly affect citizens' rights. Allowing the public to make judgments through open debate is a principle of democracy.
What remains from this controversy is not just the fate of prosecutorial supplementary investigation rights, but the attitude of the Democratic Party. Initially, they accepted the debate, only to retract that acceptance later. They cited “the opinions of party members” as the reason, but this leaves many questions in the minds of the public. Lee may be more of an expert in this field than any other member, yet the reasons for avoiding the debate remain unclear.
In politics, refusing to debate often hands victory to the opponent. Even if a debate does not take place, political impressions are already formed. The public tends to remember not who won, but who avoided the debate.
Politics is about being validated in the public square. If one believes their argument is correct, they must stand before the public. This is democracy, and it is the minimum responsibility that a public party owes to its citizens.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.