Commitment to exclude politicians engaging in hateful words from nominations by the ruling and opposition parties

After the knife attack on Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party, a distinct trend of self-reflection has emerged within the political sphere. The People Power Party is delineating specific criteria for candidate nominations, intending to penalize individuals for their history of aggressive or hate speech. Similarly, the Democratic Party is exploring methods to incorporate assessments of divisive statements into their nomination procedures. It is significant that both the ruling and opposition parties are recognizing the role of polluted political discourse and actions rooted in fanatical politics as contributing factors to the knife attack. Consequently, they are initiating efforts to reform political language in anticipation of the upcoming general election in April.

Addressing politics with dignified and measured language is an imperative task that demands immediate attention. The reason lies in the futility of expecting a forward-looking vision or societal cohesion from politicians who actively propagate political animosity and frequently resort to abusive language. There appears to be an incentive behind the persistent use of low-quality remarks. The more provocative the words and actions, the more they garner attention in online spaces, with minimal repercussions. Although members of the opposing party have been reported to the National Assembly Ethics Committee numerous times, it seems to have been futile. In the past decade, there has not been a single instance of the Ethics Committee taking disciplinary action against individuals for making derogatory comments. The National Assembly was characterized by a culture of mutual disregard, where members often turned a blind eye to each other's actions despite the outward appearance of a disciplined system.

The consequence has manifested in a terrorist attack targeting the leader of the opposition party, carried out by a politically impassioned individual ensnared in the detrimental politics dictated by algorithms. Now, politicians must personally recognize the ‘tangible consequences of employing low-level rhetoric.’ This imperative cannot be deferred to anyone else. Those at the helm of the two political parties, including Han Dong-hoon and Lee Jae-myung, must assume direct leadership in addressing this urgent matter.

Removing hatred and abusive language from nominations doesn't necessitate consensus between the ruling and opposition parties or enacting new legislation. It is an initiative that anyone with the will can undertake. While the ruling and opposition parties express their commitment to transforming the deteriorating political environment within their ranks, political reform is within reach. Rather than presenting vague plans for innovation with unclear substance, tangible innovation involves establishing a guiding principle to exclude politicians who employ harsh language from nominations. The public expects establishing and enforcing clear standards, such as disqualification from nominations and disadvantages in primary elections, based on the severity of the language used. The process would be even more effective if the outcomes were disclosed one month before the election and evaluated by the voters.

In the U.S. and the U.K. parliaments, a tradition exists of imposing disciplinary actions, such as temporary suspension, on members who undermine decorum by disobeying the chairman's instructions or causing disruptions on the floor. However, our political parties, faced with the necessity of unprecedented measures, can only capitalize on this opportunity by resorting to more stringent actions like exclusion from nominations and disadvantages in primary elections. Allowing individuals who fall short of meeting the voters' standards to hold elected office is tantamount to undermining the voters' trust.