When the right to vote and the right to watch are simultaneously threatened, the responsibility lies not with the citizens, but with the state and public institutions that should manage the mechanisms guaranteeing these rights. [Photo = Hanmi Ilbo Graphics]

"Citizens' rights are being undermined one after another. 

Lee Jae-myung's approval ratings are also collapsing helplessly."

A controversy arose during the June 3rd local elections regarding the deprivation of the right to participate, with voters unable to cast their ballots due to insufficient ballots and the suspension of voting.

This time, reports of alleged partial non-payment of World Cup broadcasting rights fees by JTBC and the possibility of broadcasting disruptions after the knockout stage have turned the right to stably watch the World Cup, an event of national interest, into a subject of controversy.

Of course, the right to participate and the right to watch are not rights of equal weight. The right to participate is a fundamental political right under the Constitution, while the universal right to watch is an institutional right that guarantees access to events of national interest within the framework of the Broadcasting Act.

However, there is a clear commonality between the two issues. The rights that citizens should naturally enjoy have become unstable due to the failure of the managing entities, poor system operation, and financial risks, not due to any fault of the citizens.

The shortage of ballots in the elections is not a simple administrative error. If citizens arriving at polling stations were unable to vote legally within the allotted time, it constitutes a substantive infringement of the right to participate.

Elections are not justified solely by their outcomes. The guarantee of an opportunity for citizens to vote without obstruction is the starting point of an election. If that starting point is shaken, the Election Commission should not dismiss it with explanations like "it did not affect the outcome."

The World Cup broadcasting controversy is also not trivial. JTBC stated, "We will broadcast without disruption until the final." If the broadcast proceeds normally, the infringement of the right to watch will not be immediately realized.

However, the problem is why that promise must be mentioned alongside variables such as the court's control over fund disbursements, the payment of broadcasting rights fees to FIFA, and the possibility of creditor backlash. The World Cup is not a mere entertainment program. It is an event of national interest whose universal right to watch is guaranteed under the Broadcasting Act.

What did Lee Jae-myung do?

Lee Jae-myung and the ruling party pushed for a law to abolish the Korea Communications Commission (KCC) and establish a new Broadcasting, Media, and Communications Commission. As a result, KCC Chairperson Lee Jin-suk faced automatic resignation during her term.

Lee Jae-myung called it broadcasting reform, but the outcome was that the prior inspection functions of the broadcasting authorities were not evident until foreign media reports raised concerns about the instability of World Cup broadcasting rights fees that the public should be watching.

Is changing the names of institutions and people considered reform? Reform can only be called so when the citizens' right to watch has become more secure.

The impeachment of the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection is similar. The government and ruling party, which pursued the impeachment of Chairman Choi Jae-hae by questioning the legality of the audit into preferential hiring of the Election Commission's children, received a dismissal ruling from the Constitutional Court.

However, when the controversy arose regarding the deprivation of the right to participate due to insufficient ballots and the suspension of voting in the June 3rd local elections, the government and ruling party stepped back from demanding a responsible fact-finding investigation, citing the independence of the Election Commission.

Why are the government and ruling party, so proactive when questioning the audit of the Election Commission, unable to immediately present a fact-finding investigation and institutional reforms that the public can understand when there are suspicions of mismanagement by the Election Commission?

Is Controlling Institutions Reform?

Is abolishing the KCC and putting up a new sign considered broadcasting reform? Is impeaching the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection considered audit reform? While labeling the audit of the Election Commission as political oppression, why did they remain silent when citizens were unable to cast their votes due to insufficient ballots at election sites? What did the broadcasting authorities inspect when the public's right to watch the World Cup was shaken by foreign media reports?

Is this the outcome of Lee Jae-myung's brand of reform?

The universal right to watch system is not a decoration for post-sanction measures. It is a system designed to establish prior safeguards so that major events that the public must be able to watch are not jeopardized by a specific broadcaster's financial crisis or failure in rights resale.

JTBC's acquisition of expensive World Cup broadcasting rights was a business decision by a private broadcaster. However, as the World Cup is an event of national interest, the stability of its broadcast cannot remain solely a private contractual matter.

The broadcasting authorities should have previously assessed whether the joint terrestrial broadcasting structure was sufficient, whether digital platform transmission was stable, and what risks the burden of broadcasting rights fees and failure in resale negotiations could pose to the public's right to watch.

An attitude of "it's up to the broadcaster to handle" is inconsistent with the purpose of the universal right to watch system. Even if the World Cup broadcast proceeds normally in the end, if the public was concerned about the possibility of broadcasting disruptions only after foreign media reports emerged, then prior management has already failed.

Rights Must Be Guaranteed Before Incidents Occur

The problem is the repeated post-incident responses.

If the system for guaranteeing citizens' rights has been reduced to a post-explanation mechanism, where the Election Management Committee's management practices are scrutinized only after ballots become insufficient, and the universal right to watch is worried about only after allegations of non-payment of broadcasting rights fees are reported by foreign media, then the system for guaranteeing rights has been reduced to a post-explanation mechanism.

Rights are not something to be restored after an incident occurs. Rights must be guaranteed before they are exercised and protected before they are threatened.

Neither the right to participate nor the universal right to watch is the fault of the citizens.

Citizens should be able to vote when they go to the polling stations, and they should be able to watch events of national interest such as the World Cup stably when they occur. The government cannot abdicate its responsibility by citing the Election Commission's status as an independent body or the fact that broadcasters are private companies.

When citizens' rights are threatened, the government's role is not to hide behind responsible institutions but to confirm the facts and propose institutional remedies.

This JTBC World Cup broadcasting controversy is not simply a matter of a broadcaster's financial risk. It raises the question of whether the right to watch events of national interest should be entrusted to a specific private broadcaster's cash flow and rehabilitation proceedings.

The controversy surrounding the deprivation of the right to participate in the June 3rd local elections also showed the damage that election management failures can inflict on citizens' exercise of sovereignty. Although the legal nature of the two issues is different, the conclusion is the same.

What did Lee Jae-myung do?

What did he do when citizens' right to participate was threatened, and what did he do when citizens' universal right to watch became precarious due to foreign media reports?

Citizens demand guarantees before incidents, not explanations afterward. That is the responsibility of the state and the minimum obligation of those in power to the people.

Citizens' rights cannot be a secondary concern to management failures.