The ruling Grand National Party is in the process of redefining its ideological guidelines, which will be contained in a new official platform. A similar procedure will soon start at the main opposition Democratic United Party, which has now completed the process of establishing a new leadership to manage the April general elections.

What is emerging at this early stage of electoral preparations provides a glimpse into, if not a whole picture of, the nation’s future political landscape: There is no ideological convergence toward the center, a trend that is often found in countries of political maturity, in the near future.

The conservative ruling party is coming closer to the center, but the liberal opposition party is under mounting pressure to embrace more radical leftist ideas. The outcome will be that the rival parties will remain as far apart in their ideological principles as they have been in the past.

The pace at which the ruling party is moving toward the center is little short of alarming to its traditional supporters. A good example is an abortive attempt to ditch “conservatism” as its ideological tenet.

A concise definition of conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting the maintenance of traditional institutions and supporting minimal and gradual change in society. But its features notable in the Korean context include antagonism toward the North Korean communists and caution against increasing welfare expenditure. Its advocates are also opposed to the idea of putting restrictions on the business activities of family-controlled conglomerates, or chaebol.

Those tasked with revising the ruling party’s platform attempted to remove any mention of conservatism. In the face of stiff resistance from conservative ideologues in and outside of the party, however, the platform drafters had to abandon this idea, together with the proposal to tighten regulations on chaebol’s investment and other business activities.

The proposed drastic change in the platform was pushed by outsiders invited to sit on the party’ emergency governing council. Among them is Kim Jong-in, who says, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.”

Rep. Park Geun-hye, chair of the emergency council, who has set her sights on the December presidential election, had the final say on the issue in favor of the status quo. But her decision does not necessarily mean that the party will remain as conservative as in the past. On the contrary, it is moving fast to the center, copying many of the policy initiatives pursued by the Democratic United Party.

A case in point is the ruling party’s decision on the President Lee Myung-bak administration’s proposal to privatize the operation of KTX high-speed trains. If it were true to its conservative ideology, it would support the privatization plan. Instead, it has decided to oppose it, as the opposition party does. A legitimate question the decision may pose is: What is the identity of the ruling party?

No wonder the Center for Free Enterprise, a think tank formerly affiliated with the Federation of Korean Industries, asks in an open letter to Rep. Park to state in unmistakable terms where the party stands with regard to the liberal democracy and market economy that it has avowedly pursued in the past. Based on her clarification, it says, advocates of conservatism will decide whether or not to continue to support the ruling party.

An identity crisis is looming in the party as the clash between pro- anti-Park factions is intensifying on issues concerning conservatism as its guiding ideology, chaebol reform, spending on welfare and relations with North Korea. A viable alternative to the factional strife is for the party to dissolve itself so that like-minded people will be able to build a new party.

Unlike the ruling party, the Democratic United Party is not exposed to the risk of an identity crisis. It has maintained consistency in its left-wing policy orientation. Still, runaway spending on welfare as an election pledge would do more harm than good. Moderates in the party are called on to put a brake on the move to expand welfare programs to an unwarranted extent.