Supreme Council member Shin Dong-wook speaking at the People Power Party Supreme Council meeting on the 22nd. [Photo = Pen and Mike screen capture]

The priorities of the Democratic Party of Korea have once again been laid bare before the public. 

An unprecedented situation occurred during the June 3rd local elections where a shortage of ballots actually prevented voters from exercising their right to vote. Yet, the Democratic Party is framing calls for a parliamentary investigation and an independent counsel into this issue as an "abuse for political strife." On the other hand, they are relentlessly clinging to a special counsel for "fabricated indictments"—in other words, the dismissal of charges—aimed at Lee Jae-myung’s criminal trials.

The public cannot help but ask: What is more important to the Democratic Party? The citizens' votes, or the criminal trials of their core leadership?

Hanmi Ilbo views this incident, where voters were effectively blocked from casting their ballots due to a lack of papers, as an act of electoral fraud involving the disenfranchisement of voters through dereliction of duty.

An election is not justified by its results alone. It is only a true election if voters are able to cast their ballots without obstruction at the designated time and place. If the state fails to properly prepare ballots, resulting in the suppression of the public’s vote, it is not merely an administrative error; it is an incident of electoral fraud that deprives citizens of their constitutionally guaranteed right to vote.

The June 3rd election fraud incident should not be reduced to the partisan interests of any single political party. 

It has been confirmed that voters were unable to cast their ballots due to shortages, voting was interrupted at some polling stations, and the National Election Commission’s reporting and command structures failed to function properly. 

It was revealed that the Seoul Metropolitan Election Commission decided to extend voting hours without any report to or consultation with the National Election Commission, and it was further confirmed that in Songpa-gu, ballot counting began even before voting had concluded.

This is not a simple procedural flaw; it is a breakdown of the temporal boundary between voting and counting.

In such a case, an independent investigation and a parliamentary probe are not options, but minimum requirements. This is a matter of constitutional order that cannot be resolved solely through internal investigations and disciplinary actions within the Election Commission. 

We must determine through an independent counsel and parliamentary inquiry who miscalculated the demand for ballots, why the reporting system failed, why on-site responses collapsed, how many voters were effectively denied their right to vote, and who is responsible.

However, the Democratic Party is exceptionally defensive regarding this issue. 

When the People Power Party demands an independent counsel, the Democratic Party reacts by calling it an attempt to "smear the Lee Jae-myung administration." Even as they claim to be open to a special counsel if necessary, their actual political energy is being poured elsewhere: specifically, into an independent counsel for "fabricated indictments" (the dismissal of charges) intended to disrupt Lee Jae-myung’s criminal trials.

The first-instance conviction of former Gyeonggi Province Vice Governor Lee Hwa-young for perjury in the "salmon and alcohol party" incident has made the Democratic Party's stance even more apparent. The Suwon District Court sentenced the former vice governor to four months in prison for violating the Act on Testimony and Appraisal Before the National Assembly. 

While this is not a final judgment, the first-instance court has at least determined that the core testimony related to the so-called "salmon and alcohol party" was perjury.

For some time, the Democratic Party has used these allegations as a pretext for accusing the prosecution of manipulation, calling for the impeachment and disciplining of prosecutors, holding National Assembly hearings, and demanding a special counsel for "fabricated indictments." These allegations served as critical kindling to frame the Lee Jae-myung-related North Korean remittance case as political suppression. 

Now that a court has judged the core testimony to be perjury, the first thing the Democratic Party should do is not to insist on a special counsel, but to explain the situation to the public and offer an apology.

However, the Democratic Party’s response was different. They interpreted the ruling by saying, "The verdict is guilty, but the substance is innocent." 

It is a dangerous reinterpretation of the rule of law to claim that something is "innocent in substance" based on political necessity when the conclusion of a criminal trial is "guilty." 

If they dismiss a guilty verdict as "substantively innocent" when it is inconvenient, and dismiss an election management failure as "abuse for political strife" when that is inconvenient, then the law, the election, and even the people will eventually become subservient to the language of power.

In this sense, the offensive launched by the People Power Party’s Supreme Council members against the Democratic Party on the 22nd cannot be viewed as a mere partisan squabble. 

Supreme Council member Shin Dong-wook criticized the "salmon and alcohol party" allegations as a "massive fraud against the public" and demanded an apology from the Democratic Party. Supreme Council member Kim Min-soo argued that the essence of the illegal North Korean remittance case is being obscured behind those allegations. 

Regardless of the intensity of the expression, the core point remains one question: Is it normal to cling to testimony deemed as perjury and push for a special counsel to dismiss charges?

If the Democratic Party wants to truly speak of democracy and the rule of law, the order of priority must change. The first step must be to uncover the truth behind the June 3rd election fraud where the public’s voting rights were effectively blocked.

An independent investigation must reveal why the Election Commission failed to prepare enough ballots, why the reporting system collapsed, why ballot counting began before voting had finished, and who must be held accountable.

In contrast, an independent counsel for "fabricated indictments" is fundamentally tied to Lee Jae-myung’s criminal trials. The Democratic Party may package this as "prosecution reform," but in the eyes of the public, it is nothing more than "bulletproof legislation" intended to reduce the legal risks facing their core leadership. 

If the criminal trial of a person in power takes precedence over the voting rights of the entire public, that is not reform. It is the privatization of the rule of law.

The Democratic Party must now answer. 

Is a special counsel for the dismissal of charges more important than a special counsel for the June 3rd election fraud? Does Lee Jae-myung’s trial come before the people’s vote? How long will they continue this double standard of calling allegations of disenfranchisement "political strife" while labeling the protection of a powerful figure’s trial as "reform"?

The credibility of an election is the minimum foundation of democracy. If that foundation has been shaken, it is the duty of any public political party, regardless of affiliation, to set out to uncover the truth.

If the Democratic Party continues to call for a special counsel for "fabricated indictments" without offering an apology, the public will conclude as follows: 

A special counsel that ignores the public’s vote is not reform. It is nothing but "bulletproof legislation" for Lee Jae-myung.