On the 2nd, protesters demonstrating against the ballot shortage form a scrum at the ballot counting station at the Olympic Park Handball Gymnasium in Songpa-gu, Seoul, where an on-site investigation by the National Assembly's 'Special Committee on the Truth Finding of Deprivation of Voting Rights' is scheduled to take place. [Photo=Yonhap News]

An election is not justified by its results alone. Citizens must be able to vote without interference, and the election management body must oversee the entire process with meticulous care. 

Preparing ballots, operating polling stations, responding to on-site issues, reporting and issuing directives, and conducting follow-up inspections are all fundamental aspects of election management. When this process collapses, the credibility of the election collapses with it.

The essence of the June 3rd deprivation of suffrage incident lies right here. 

Ballots ran out at some polling stations, voting was suspended, and voters were forced to wait or turn away. This is not a mere administrative error. It is an incident where the right to vote, which must be exercised by the people, was blocked at the scene. 

Even by the figures disclosed by the National Election Commission (NEC) itself, this was not a localized error but a nationwide management failure. The NEC has admitted to and apologized for the infringement on voting rights. Therefore, what is needed now is more than just words.

In public service, management is defined not by words, but by records. 

There must be a record of when the ballots ran out, who first recognized the issue, through which chain of command it was reported, when the leadership was informed, who gave what orders, and what measures were taken on the ground. If the NEC had truly managed the election, those records would exist.

However, the state of management revealed by the NEC since the deprivation of suffrage incident is staggering. 

If the NEC cannot even properly present the time of initial recognition, reporting lines, records of directives, and records of actions taken at the scene where citizens' right to vote was blocked, this cannot be dismissed as simple incompetence. It is a loss of qualification to manage. 

Claiming "management" without records is not an explanation; it is an excuse. And if that excuse was intended to cover up the deprivation of suffrage, it becomes an issue that transcends administrative accountability and must be examined for criminal culpability. 

If there are no management records despite the fact that citizens' voting rights were obstructed, the NEC's words are no longer a subject for trust, but a subject for investigation.

It is not as if the NEC is an organization that does not know how to keep records. 

Phone calls from political circles on election day and the subsequent flow of responses remain in call logs. When demands for the resignation of the acting chairman of the NEC, Wi Chul-hwan, were raised, an internal review document aimed at "retaining all members" was also drafted. 

It is only natural that the public is outraged that while records regarding the scenes where their voting rights were blocked are poor, records and logic regarding political responses and organizational defense were kept intact. 

When citizens' voting rights were obstructed, the first thing the NEC should have provided was the reporting structure and chain of accountability, not a logic for organizational defense. Before crafting arguments to protect the seats of those in charge, they should have provided the public with a timeline of the blocked voting rights.

They cannot escape by claiming simple incompetence. 

Lack of intent does not mean a lack of guilt. The fact that the outcome was not affected does not mean there is no guilt. The responsibility of election management does not end with merely not committing fraud oneself. 

Election management extends to preventing potential fraud and ensuring every procedure is documented so that the public can verify it.

If management failure is a structural issue, it means that fraud was not prevented, and consequently, it was left unchecked. An election where fraud is left unchecked cannot be called a simple error. An election that is not properly managed has already undermined its own legitimacy.

At this point, the responsibility of political circles and traditional media is not small either. Now that it has been revealed that the management failure was not just a simple oversight, continuing to harp on about "incompetence" is an irresponsible excuse and an insult to the public. 

The public is not demanding imaginary suspicions. They are demanding records, the fundamental requirement of public service. If the NEC feels aggrieved, all they need to do is produce the records. That is why people say they should show some shame before talking about conspiracy theories.

An unmanaged election is already a fraudulent election. 

It is not just a question of whether fraud was directly committed. If the NEC failed to prevent fraud, failed to stop the infringement of voting rights, and failed to even prove the process through records, then it has lost its qualification as an election management body. 

What is needed now is a special counsel investigation, the holding of those responsible to account, and public verification that the people can accept.