[Editorial] Should Civil Society Groups Solely Determine Election Results?

Citizens’ Solidarity for Elections 2004 has announced the 209 legislator candidates whom they will campaign to unseat, and Mulgari National Solidarity 2004 has endorsed 54 candidates. Their moves would unlikely be appealing to the public because they used the candidates’ position toward the Roh impeachment as their criterion.

It is true that a number of opinion polls show that 60-70 percent of the public opposes the impeachment. However, how to evaluate each candidate hinges on each voter’s collective judgment. It’s not the civil society groups’ job to unseat legislators for their support for the impeachment. If every single opposition lawmaker must be unseated, what will be the point in holding elections? They effectively say we all should vote for the governing party candidates.

Indeed, all of the pro-impeachment lawmakers are singled out to be unseated, while none of them were among the 54 candidates who were endorsed. Whatever the justification, their moves are seen in the interest of the Uri Party which attempts to use the elections as a public verdict on the impeachment.

The numeral disproportion in the lists between parties is also revealing. About 100 Grand National Party candidates and 52 New Millennium Party candidates are classified to be unseated, while only 10 Uri Party candidates are targeted. Those endorsed include 36 Uri Party members, while several GNP and MDP members managed to make it on the list.

There is public concern that the impeachment has ridded the election of debates on policy and personalities. Civil society organizations, which should neutrally evaluate lawmakers’ job performances, need to mull over whether or not they are making a mistake by blinding voters.

Needless to say, the essence of civil society groups is non-partisan. If the organizations get involved in the elections while overlooking this principle, it will amount to self-denial.