"Isn't the outcome already predetermined?"
These are common sentiments heard while covering the 22nd National Assembly. The majority is a pillar of democracy, reflecting the will of the people as much as possible in a reality where not everyone can be satisfied. However, looking at the current National Assembly, the majority has become a source of power. It appears that lawmakers intoxicated by that power are falling into the trap of the majority.
In the 22nd National Assembly, the ruling Democratic Party, in alliance with pro-government parties like the Justice Party and the Progressive Party, has not only failed to meet the quorum for constitutional amendments and presidential impeachment proposals but is also exercising significant power. The party can even forcibly end filibusters, rendering the People Power Party's right to defend itself virtually meaningless.
In this situation, where the balance between the ruling and opposition parties has collapsed, the Democratic Party, having secured overwhelming seats and allied forces, has prioritized forming key committees. Despite concerns from some in the legal community about reduced victim protection and weakened national investigative powers, the party has pushed through amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act against the opposition's objections.
In response to the formation of committees, the People Power Party declared a boycott of the National Assembly, engaging in a prolonged struggle. However, facing criticism for neglecting public welfare, they had no choice but to return to the Assembly. This process has intensified the confrontation between the two parties.
Additionally, the Democratic Party is seeking to amend the National Assembly Act to shorten the fast-track processing period. They even aim to strengthen the requirements for filibusters and allow for the replacement of inactive committee chairs. This is interpreted as an effort to further pressure the opposition.
The bill, proposed by Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Tae-nyeon, stipulates that if a committee chair fails to fulfill their duties, the chairperson can designate a deputy to take over. The deputy would be appointed from the ranks of the larger negotiating group. If the bill passes, the Democratic Party could operate other committees if they determine that a People Power Party chair is not performing adequately.
While this change could enhance legislative efficiency, it also raises concerns about weakening the opposition's oversight function. The ruling party's intention to accelerate legislative processes for national agenda execution is understandable. However, there are doubts about whether the potential side effects of the bill can be adequately reviewed without sufficient discussion. Given that the bill directly impacts citizens' lives, it should be examined more carefully.
In fact, no one knows what effects the Democratic Party's leadership in the latter half of the National Assembly will yield. It could lead to positive outcomes. Nevertheless, to evaluate the results, time must pass, and based on the current situation, it is difficult to avoid criticism that the operation of the National Assembly and the processing of bills have been one-sided.
Moreover, from my observations in the field, I frequently witnessed instances where the Democratic Party's position was ultimately reflected when the two parties clashed. Even when negotiating issues, it appeared that the Democratic Party, holding the majority, led the discussions.
The power of the majority should not be used to push through conclusions but should instead shine when it embraces minority voices and demonstrates cooperation. When the National Assembly escapes the trap of the majority and becomes a space for mutual concessions, it can truly serve as a pillar of democracy.
Today's majority could become tomorrow's minority. Whether the power of the majority will uphold democracy or undermine it ultimately depends on the choices of those in power. I hope that when reflecting on the 22nd National Assembly in the future, it will not be remembered solely for its unilateralism.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.