[Ecohoon] Beyond the Tragedy of Korean Political History: A Path to Love

"The time is 11:22 AM." "Order: President Yoon Suk-yeol is removed from office." I watched the Constitutional Court's ruling in the E-mart parking lot with my wife. Hearing the final verdict, I was truly moved.

Within 10 years, South Korea has experienced the tragic event of two presidents being impeached in its constitutional history. It is a heartbreaking matter. For decades, many sacrifices were made to allow us to elect our president, sacrifices that built our democracy. It was with the hands of our citizens that we built the Republic of Korea we have today.

However, impeachment proceedings were initiated due to the president's personal mistakes or ambitions, and this was upheld by the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court's ruling has somewhat alleviated the unprecedented confusion in South Korea. Feelings of sorrow and relief coexist.

This incident, and the full text of the Constitutional Court's ruling, show that we must not evaluate this case solely based on its outcome.

Acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae delivered messages alternately to the National Assembly and the presidential side. It was extremely impressive. It seemed as if someone standing between the two sides was reprimanding them both.

✅Message to the Opposition Party

Regarding the opposition party, government policies were unable to be implemented due to opposing votes, and the opposition party unilaterally passed policies opposed by the government, leading to repeated requests for reconsideration and bill resolutions by the respondent. The respondent likely felt a sense of responsibility to overcome this, perceiving that national affairs were paralyzed and national interests were being harmed by the opposition party's excesses. The respondent's judgment that national affairs were paralyzed should be politically respected.

However, the conflict between the respondent and the National Assembly cannot be considered the sole responsibility of one party and is a political issue that should be resolved in accordance with the principles of democracy.

The expression of political opinions or public resolutions on this matter should be within a range consistent with the democracy guaranteed by the Constitution.

The National Assembly should have respected minority opinions and strived to reach a conclusion through dialogue and compromise, based on tolerance and restraint in its relationship with the government.

✅Message to the Respondent

The respondent should have also respected the National Assembly as a partner in governance. However, the respondent treated the National Assembly as an entity to be excluded, which undermines the foundation of democratic politics and is difficult to reconcile with democracy. Even if the respondent considered the actions of the National Assembly to be the tyranny of the majority, the respondent should have ensured that checks and balances were implemented through the means prescribed by the Constitution.

The respondent had the opportunity to persuade the public to support their governance in the National Assembly elections held about two years after their inauguration. However, even if the outcome did not align with the respondent's intentions, the respondent should not have attempted to disregard the will of the citizens who supported the opposition party. As the president of all citizens, the respondent violated their duty to unite the community by surpassing those who supported them. They abandoned their duty to uphold the Constitution and seriously betrayed the trust of the sovereign citizens of the democratic republic.

Members of the National Assembly and political parties may say that they work for the interests of their party, but fundamentally, they should work for the interests of the citizens. Ultimately, the core issue lies in democracy. The foundation of democracy is the people, and actions that plunge the people into confusion should be avoided.

Even if it is in the interest of the party, it should not be done if it goes against the interests of the people. Even if their terms as National Assembly members and their political lives end, prioritizing the will of the people is their paramount duty.

Both the National Assembly and the President bear responsibility. I hope that in the future, they will govern the country with the values of reconciliation, consideration, inclusion, and love, prioritizing the entire nation and national interest.