The end of 2015 saw the implosion of the New Politics Alliance for Democracy, Korea’s main opposition party, after months of rising tension.

On Dec. 13, Ahn Cheol-soo announced that he was leaving the party and that he would form another party with the hope of becoming the main opposition party. Since then, a number National Assembly representatives have left the party, which has rebranded itself as the Minjoo Party of Korea. Since Ahn’s departure, defections have continued as politicians jockey for position in a fluid situation.

Some polls show that Ahn’s yet-to-be formed party has gained support and has moved into second place after the ruling Saenuri Party. For Minjoo Party leader Moon Jae-in, who came in a close second to Park Geun-hye in the 2012 presidential, the demise of the party represents a significant fall from grace.

Since Park Chung-hee rose to power in the 1961, Korean politics has been divided into a two main groups with small splinter groups often shifting the balance toward one of the main groups. The most common term to describe the groups are “conservative” and “liberal” (or “progressive”), but as elsewhere, these terms are used so loosely that they have lost much of their meaning. A more accurate description would be to label the ruling Saenuri Party and its predecessors as the “Economy Party” and the historic opposition group as the “Democracy Party.” Each group relied on strong support from home regions in addition to support for its political positions.

Founded by Park Chung-hee, the Economy Party has focused almost exclusively on economic development. The underlying idea is that a strong economy underpins national security and, in the context of the 1960s and 1970s, national survival. From 1961 until democratic reforms in 1987, democratic will was suppressed in the name of economic development.

The Democracy Party, meanwhile emerged from opposition to Park’s strong-armed rule and from groups that supported the April 19 Revolution in 1960 that topped Syngman Rhee. Former presidents Kim Dae-jung and, a lesser extent, Kim Young-sam, were leaders of this group from the 1960s until the end of Kim Dae-jung’s term in 2003.

From this perspective, the presidential elections in 1992, 1997, and 2002 represent victories for the Democracy Party, whereas the recent 2007 and 2012 elections represent victories for the Economy Party. During its 15 years in power, the Democracy Party implemented political and economic reforms that helped Korea join the elite group of wealthy democracies. After years of reform, an aging population concerned about the economy gave power back to the Economy Party in 2007. The same concern influenced the 2012 election as they narrowly decided to keep the Economy Party in power.

During years of dictatorship, the Democracy Party was naturally on the ascendance because economic growth raised standards of living and levels of education, which in turn increased democratic aspirations. As these aspirations became reality, the Democracy Party had much work to do once in power, which explains the 15-year run from 1993 to 2008.

The loss of power and the sense of inevitability that came with it caused the Democracy Party to lose its way. Instead of offering a concise agenda grounded in a clear political philosophy, the Democracy Party focused on responding to issues of the day. Each issue stirred waves of protests in Gwanghwamun and elsewhere, but the protests failed to gain enough broad public support. Over time, the waves of demonstrations made the Democracy Party look like a 1980s student movement nostalgia show, which only fed the image of the Economy Party as the only “safe” choice. 

By the end of Park Geun-hye’s term in early 2018, the Economy Party will have been in power for 10 years, suggesting that a change would be in order. Long periods of rule by one group cause complacency and a desire for change.

For the Democracy Party to take advantage of the public’s latent desire for change, it needs to get its house in order. That looks increasingly difficult as the group continues to break up, but it is not impossible. 

The first order of business is to find a leader who can bring the two rival factions together. That may not happen until after a poor performance in National Assembly elections next year. The more important order of business, however, is for the Democracy Party to become proactive. It needs to propose an optimistic agenda for deepening democracy and creating a sense of hope for Koreans, young and old, who feel that the country has lost its way.

By Robert J. Fouser

Robert J. Fouser, a former associate professor of Korean language education at Seoul National University, writes on Korea from Ann Arbor, Michigan. — Ed.