Why take subsidies if serving only party loyalists?

The politics of catering solely to party members has become a fixture in Yeouido. Chung Cheong-rae, leader of the Democratic Party, exemplifies this approach. With steadfast backing from hardline members, he pledged in his acceptance speech to “revere the will of the members as if it were the heavens” and vowed that “the party’s decisions will be made by asking the members and following their will.”

As promised, Chung has shown little concern for the title of “ruling party leader” as long as he retains member support. He reappointed Rep. Kang Sun-woo, who withdrew as nominee for minister of gender equality and family over allegations of mistreating aides, as head of the party’s international affairs committee, praising her English skills as interpreter-level. Toward the People Power Party, he has declared it should be dissolved “10 or 100 times.” Although President Lee Jae-myung has vowed to be “a president for all,” Chung appears to see that as the president’s responsibility, not the ruling party leader’s.

The People Power Party is no different in focusing on its hardline base. Kim Moon-soo and Jang Dong-hyuk, viewed as front-runners in the party leadership race, openly promote slogans aimed at appeasing these members. They say it would be acceptable to allow former President Yoon Suk Yeol back into the party and, regarding the controversy over Jeon Han-gil, respond with, “What’s the problem?” They show little regard for broader public opinion, perhaps assuming moderates and younger members have already left the party.

This year, the state will give each of the two parties more than 20 billion won in annual operational subsidies. These are separate from the June 3 presidential election subsidies—25.6 billion won for the Democratic Party and 24.2 billion won for the People Power Party—and reimbursements for campaign expenses, which totaled 44.7 billion won and 44 billion won, respectively. From 2001 to last year, more than 1.5 trillion won in state subsidies has been distributed in this way.

The South Korean Constitution explicitly states that the state will subsidize political parties’ operating funds. Among OECD member nations, only Greece, Mexico, and Turkey have similar constitutional provisions. The clause was introduced in 1980 by Chun Doo-hwan’s military regime. The prevailing view is that it was intended to make controlling parties easier for a regime lacking legitimacy. Regardless of its origins, lawmakers left the clause unchanged during the 1987 constitutional revision, apparently finding it satisfactory.

It was the 1989 amendment to the Political Funds Act that required subsidies for parties to be included in the budget based on the number of voters. National Assembly records from the time explain the rationale for using public funds as “ensuring that parties gather public opinion to carry out normal policy activities.”

Many countries without such constitutional clauses still provide subsidies under law. However, they often limit them to election cost reimbursements or cap them so they cannot exceed membership dues. In contrast, South Korea offers multiple forms of aid—annual subsidies, election subsidies, and expense reimbursements—under the pretext of “gathering public opinion.”

The two major parties have long used taxpayers’ money to expand their size and entrench privileges that block new political forces from entering. This entrenched two-party structure leaves many voters reluctantly choosing between a Democratic Party that caters only to “gae-ddal” loyalists and a People Power Party focused solely on “asphalt conservatives.”

Now, these two cartel-like parties are openly declaring they will not even heed ordinary citizens. If their aim is to serve only party members, they should renounce state subsidies and operate solely on membership dues. That would be the minimum courtesy to citizens who are not party members.


김준일 기자