[Opinion] Rebellious Votes?

Dictator Park Jung-hee in late 1965 was determined to keep his parliamentary speaker Lee Hyo-sang. But Kim Jong-pil faction in the ruling Republican Party backed fellow assemblyman Jung Gu-young, who garnered the most votes in the first-round vote. Park was furious. He singled out leaders of the rebel group and revoked or suspended their party membership.

In September 1971, the opposition New Democratic Party proposed a non-confidence vote on Interior Minister Oh Chi-sung. In an incident dubbed ‘Oct, 2 revolt,’ the anti-Kim Jong Pil force in the ruling party voted against the minister successfully. But 23 rebellious assemblymen were taken to the Central Intelligence Agency where they were kicked and beaten by interrogators. Two even gave up their parliamentary seats under duress.

Bad habits persist. Political parties still make a fuss about rebellious votes whenever there is a floor vote on a key issue. When an assemblyman from the opposition Grand National Party Suh Sang-mok managed to avoid criminal charges after a majority decided not to reject him in a vote held in April 1999, the black list soon appeared in the political circle, which included names of 19 United Liberal Democrat betrayers.

And GNP lawmaker Kim Hong-shin was kicked out of the health and welfare committee after taking a stance as opposed to the party’s. Early this year, the National Assembly introduced a cross-voting provision that urges parliamentarians to vote their consciences, but not much changed since then. In a floor vote held last month to elect parliamentary leaders, lawmakers voted their party lines according to compromises earlier made.

Why they need to make compromises before voting their consciences? Song Young-jin from the ruling Millennium Democratic Party was even calling names when his fellow assemblyman Cho Soon-hyung did not show up to act on his conscience.

After the National Assembly rejected on July 31 the appointment of Prime Minister designate Jang Sang, parties were busy finding who voted how. They were even pointing fingers to each other over the results.

It makes no sense for them to find rebellious or maverick votes, while seemingly embracing the conscience vote idea. What is so rebellious or maverick? When assemblymen are rebellious, they are rebellious against the people. They are, however, now finding rebels among themselves.

Politicians are so forgetful that they become blatant. It has been only months since they introduced the floor vote system with fanfare, and now they hardly remember what they did. The vulgarity of our politics indeed has its root on a chasm between the institution and practices.

Im Chae-jung, Editorial Writer