[Editorial] Eyes on the Pragmatism inside the Ruling party

Several assemblymen in the Uri Party have banded together to form the “Congregation of National Assemblymen for Stable Reform” in order to contribute a pragmatist voice in the discussion of current issues. Their intention is to say what needs to be said for the good of the nation, even at the risk of being labeled “conservative” by the constituency. It is an auspicious move, albeit rather belated.

Hopefully, the activation of this “Congregation” will spark a transition in the ruling party, which has been censured as being ideologically biased and incapable of properly operating a procedural democracy. At the least, there should be no second repetition of such dubious practices as was seen in the debate on the National Security Law, when the arguments for “amendment” were completely abandoned in favor of “abrogation” at a single word from the president.

“You’ll find that 50 percent of the party members are actually moderatist, but the image of the Uri Party as a whole seems only to reflect the (hard-line) views of the remaining 50 percent,” the “Congregation” members point out. It is a state of affairs that should not be easily dismissed; why do we never hear the voices of reason and moderation, while those of hard-line reformists resound at every turn? It’s partly to do with the courage and conviction of individual assemblymen, but more significantly, the party needs to engage in some humble self-examination to see whether this does not in fact derive from the iron grasp of “reform” and “resolution” reigning in the form of yet another self-righteous ideology.

One pertinent example is the “Special Law on Probing the Truth behind Pro-Japanese and Anti-national Actions” passed last year by the National Assembly. Apparently, anyone with reason and common sense could find numerous problems both small and large upon a calm inspection of the bill, but they were overlooked in the end. Sources say that the assemblymen in attendance were wary of even mentioning the existence of “flaws” in the bill for fear of being branded as “anti-reform.” And it seems that things are no different with the amendment bill currently under discussion. How can this be the workings of a political party in a democratic nation? Is the phrase “participatory government” just a figure of speech?

Heterogeneity of opinion is the life force of a democratic party. “Fear of provoking conflict within the party” is an obsolete principle that should no longer hold sway in the decision-making process. We hope that the “Congregation” and its policy of objective decisions based on positive fact will help reshape the ruling party into a more balanced and responsible organ. The favor of the people cannot be earned by empty discourses on reform or the pointless sifting of past history.