[Editorial] Power without restraint

Korea Herald

19 hours ago

A contentious budget vote lays bare deep gulf between power politics, democratic principles
Late Friday night, as the nation's attention was focused elsewhere, South Korea's ruling Democratic Party of Korea passed a supplementary budget worth 31.8 trillion won ($23.3 billion). The party acted alone. No opposition lawmakers took part. There was no compromise, no negotiation.
This was no routine fiscal exercise. It was the first major budget under President Lee Jae Myung's administration, pushed through just a month after his inauguration. Yet the process followed a now familiar pattern of majoritarian dominance. Backed by its commanding parliamentary majority, the ruling party advanced its agenda without regard for political dialogue or consensus.
At the heart of the dispute was an unlikely but revealing issue: 'special activity funds,' allocated to the presidential office and other powerful agencies. Only months ago, the Democratic Party had denounced these funds as slush money and led efforts to eliminate them under the previous administration. Now, with the same party in power, those funds have not only been restored, but expanded — a move that drew immediate accusations of hypocrisy from the conservative People Power Party, which responded by walking out of the vote.
This clash over opaque budget items points to a deeper malaise in South Korean politics. Too often, principles voiced in opposition are abandoned once power is secured.
The Democratic Party offered no credible explanation for its reversal, nor did it attempt to persuade the opposition to participate in the legislative process. Instead, it proceeded unilaterally — as it did days earlier when confirming Kim Min-seok as prime minister, another vote conducted without opposition lawmakers present.
The irony is hard to miss. Lee and his allies have repeatedly called for 'political normalization' to restore stability after years of partisan strife. Yet their approach — marked by unilateral actions and selective memory — could deepen, rather than heal, political divides. The ruling party's justification is straightforward: The economy is in crisis, and swift action is needed. But urgency cannot justify the erosion of democratic procedure and institutional trust.
Serious questions also surround the economic merits of the budget. Expanded consumer subsidies may deliver a short-term lift to domestic demand, but economists warn of inflation risks and mounting public debt, which now exceeds 1,300 trillion won. The inclusion of politically contentious items, such as increased special funds, further undermines the credibility of the government's fiscal priorities.
Still, the ruling party does not bear sole responsibility for the breakdown. The People Power Party's decision to boycott the process reflects its own reluctance to engage constructively. Rather than confronting the government with reasoned arguments and detailed alternatives, it chose to abstain — a tactic that neither reins in the majority nor earns broader public support. Its tendency to obstruct rather than persuade has become habitual.
Nor can the presidential office afford to remain aloof. While the president has urged swift implementation of the budget, general appeals for cooperation ring hollow without tangible efforts to rebuild trust across party lines. Leadership requires more than administrative efficiency; it demands political judgment and the discipline to prioritize long-term democratic stability over short-term political advantage.
If both sides persist in this cycle of boycotts and unilateralism, the consequences will reach beyond the National Assembly. South Korea faces severe economic headwinds, geopolitical uncertainty and fragile public confidence. What the country needs is governance that prizes stability over confrontation.
Ultimately, the true measure of political strength lies not in the ability to prevail in votes but in the willingness to exercise restraint. Power, used responsibly, can fortify democratic institutions and restore public trust. Without such restraint, the current standoff in Seoul may shift from a story of economic recovery to a cautionary tale of deepening dysfunction.