Political arrogance still carries electoral risks

Who should be held accountable when politicians who preach discipline become the source of controversy themselves?

In late March, Jung Chung-rae, leader of the ruling Democratic Party of Korea, pledged to crack down on careless remarks and behavior that could hurt the party’s chances in the June 3 local elections. As predictions of a landslide victory for the party gained momentum, Jung warned against complacency and called for tighter internal discipline.

Soon afterward, however, his own remarks landed him in controversy. During a campaign stop at Gupo Market in Busan two days before Children’s Day, Jung encouraged a young elementary school girl to call former presidential AI policy secretary Ha Jung-woo “oppa,” a familiar Korean term younger women sometimes use for older men. Jung is in his 60s, while Ha, now running in the Busan Buk-gap by-election, is nearing 50.

Critics questioned whether Jung would have made the same request to the daughter or granddaughter of someone socially senior to him. Many viewed the comment as reflecting poor gender sensitivity and an inappropriate use of social authority.

Although Jung later apologized, the backlash intensified after Kim Kwang-min, vice president of the Democratic Party-affiliated Democratic Research Institute, defended the remark on social media. Kim wrote in a Facebook post, later deleted, that critics interpreted the word sexually because “their minds are filled with obscene thoughts.”

In Korean, “oppa” is typically used by a younger woman to affectionately address or refer to an older man. On Children’s Day, a user asked the National Institute of Korean Language’s online forum whether it would generally be appropriate for a young girl meeting a man more than 40 years older for the first time to call him “oppa.” The institute responded that the term would be inappropriate in such circumstances because first meetings lack the emotional familiarity associated with the expression and because a 40-year age gap places the older man closer to a parental generation. The ruling party’s verbal controversies have not stopped there.

Kim Moon-soo of the Democratic Party of Korea recently said lawmakers were elected "to monitor" officials, adding, “If you want to be a 'lackey,' you should become a civil servant.” The slang term he used refers disparagingly to someone assigned trivial errands. Kim had already drawn criticism last September during a parliamentary hearing over the 2010 sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan, which was attacked by a North Korean torpedo. At the time, he criticized authorities for failing to determine exactly where the attack originated or mount a meaningful response.

At this point, the repeated controversies are becoming difficult to dismiss as simple verbal missteps. Yet even basic discussions within the Democratic Party about preventing similar incidents appear absent, perhaps because the leadership itself has become caught up in the issue after publicly promising strict disciplinary measures.

Supporters of the Democratic Party may counter criticism of the party’s “arrogant rhetoric” by pointing to the opposition People Power Party, which has faced backlash over candidate nominations associated with the slogan “Yoon Again.” But elections are rarely decided by comparing which side made the bigger mistake.

When the People Power Party criticized the Democratic Party’s proposed special counsel bill on alleged fabricated investigations and indictments by warning against a “presidential self-cancellation of indictments,” the Democratic Party responded with rhetoric about eliminating “accomplices to insurrection.”

Politicians may spend campaigns urging voters to punish the opposing side. In the end, however, voters decide whom to hold accountable. That is why Democratic Party lawmaker Park Sung-joon sparked backlash after saying that “eight or nine out of 10 citizens do not even understand what canceling an indictment means.”

South Korean elections have repeatedly shown how a single careless remark can alter political momentum overnight. The lingering fallout from the infamous “If you divorce in Seoul, you move to Bucheon. If you fail, you move to Incheon” comment remains a potent reminder.

When politicians refuse to take responsibility for remarks that deserve criticism, voters may ultimately decide to deliver the judgment themselves.