Lawmakers’ power abuse sparks accountability debate

The ruling Democratic Party of Korea has been especially active in addressing power abuse. The Euljiro Committee, established in 2013 in response to growing public concern, has remained active for 13 years. During the Moon Jae-in administration, the so-called three fair economy laws were passed, along with the Public Institution Power Abuse Eradication Act and the Workplace Bullying Prohibition Act. These measures broadened the scope of power abuse beyond relations between large corporations and small suppliers to include authoritarian practices within organizations and class-based discrimination, placing them under legal regulation.

However, recent allegations involving ruling party lawmakers Kim Byung-ki and Kang Sun-woo, as well as Lee Hye-hoon, a nominee for minister of planning and budget, have exposed that the National Assembly still functions as a sanctuary for power abuse. All three have faced scrutiny so relentless that commentators have coined the phrase “one allegation a day.” While the specifics and severity of the accusations vary, the underlying pattern is clear. Each case centers on the misuse of authority.

Kang was accused of treating staff as personal servants, including ordering them to take out household trash and repair a broken bidet. The allegations led to his withdrawal last year as a nominee for minister of gender equality and family. Kim came under fire over claims that he pressured former aides who had found new jobs to dismiss other staff members, triggering a cascade of additional disclosures. Allegations involving Lee gained traction after recordings surfaced in which he was heard verbally abusing aides with remarks such as, “I hope I really kill you,” and, “Can’t you even control your bodily functions?”

The belated exposure of power abuse in the National Assembly reflects a closed structure in which aides are heavily dependent on individual lawmakers. The concentration of authority within the legislature has dulled sensitivity to power abuse, even as public awareness of the issue has grown across South Korean society. Partisan loyalty has further weakened accountability. The Democratic Party defended Kang, by saying, “Comrades stick together in the rain,” while allegations raised by Kim’s aides were dismissed as “one sided complaints.”

Partisan politics that operate on a “do as I say, not as I do” logic have cultivated a deep sense of entitlement, blurring the line between public authority and personal privilege. When the party’s ethics committee expelled Kim, he responded by asking, “How cruel can this be?” Kang, after shedding tears and insisting, “I am not that kind of person,” went on to attend the next nomination meeting and pressed for city councilor Kim Kyung to receive a direct nomination in exchange for campaign donations. Such brazenness is difficult to explain without acknowledging an entrenched sense of entitlement that dulls any instinct for accountability.

The benefits and nomination-related donation allegations exposed through power abuse are unlikely to be mere “human error” or isolated lapses in judgment, as the Democratic Party of Korea has argued. The party’s delayed expulsions and hesitant disciplinary measures make it hard to claim that genuine accountability has been enforced. Meaningful reform begins with abandoning entitlement and demonstrating a readiness to place oneself fully under the blade of reform.