Former President Park Geun-hye visited and spoke with People Power Party leader Jang Dong-hyeok, who has been on a hunger strike for eight days at the National Assembly’s Rotunda Hall, on January 22 to demand the acceptance of a "dual special counsel" probe into the Unification Church and nomination bribery. [Photo=Yonhap News]

The People Power Party should adopt mass resignation of its lawmakers as an official party platform.

This is not an emotional slogan. It does not mean abandoning the National Assembly. Rather, it is a final political decision to ask the public whether the current National Assembly is in a state capable of resolving the constitutional crisis through normal parliamentary procedures.

The June 3 disenfranchisement incident cannot be dismissed as a mere shortage of ballot papers. Everything—from the shortage of ballots, suspension of voting, management of reserve ballots, storage and transport of ballot boxes, to the chain of custody during the counting process—must be subject to verification.

An election is not justified by a result sheet alone. The fundamentals of democracy are whether citizens voted without interference, whether the ballots were stored safely, and whether the counting process is proven by records.

However, while the Democratic Party of Korea talks about a special counsel, it refuses to relinquish its right to recommend the investigator. This is the essence of the problem.

The public will not be satisfied with a special counsel that only checks a few internal issues at the National Election Commission (NEC).

A true special counsel investigation must be able to examine the structural responsibilities of the NEC, the political sphere, and the institutional framework as a whole. Trying to blur the right to recommend a special counsel under the pretext of a "Democratic Party or third-party recommendation" is not about "uncovering the truth" but rather "managing the truth."

This is the reason why the People Power Party must make "mass resignation of lawmakers" its party platform.

Mass resignation does not automatically take effect just by party resolution. Individual lawmakers must submit their resignation letters, which require approval from the National Assembly while in session or from the National Assembly Speaker when in recess. Issues regarding the succession of proportional representation seats also remain. Therefore, the resolution to resign does not immediately lead to the loss of parliamentary seats.

However, the essence of politics is not just legal effect. If every People Power Party lawmaker writes their resignation letter, demands the party's right to recommend a special counsel for the June 3 disenfranchisement case, and forces a choice upon the Democratic Party and the National Assembly Speaker, the situation changes.

If the Democratic Party accepts these resignations, it must bear the constitutional controversy of a National Assembly with fewer than 200 members. If it rejects them, it must take political responsibility for "blocking the quest for truth that the opposition party was willing to stake their parliamentary seats on."

This is the power of the mass resignation card.

The claim by some that extra-parliamentary struggle is synonymous with failure is not factual.

A prime example is the controversy over the revision of the Private School Act during the Roh Moo-hyun administration. In 2005, when the Uri Party unilaterally passed the amendment, then-Hannara Party leader Park Geun-hye took to the streets. There was significant criticism and controversy over the stalled National Assembly.

However, that struggle re-gathered the scattered conservative base. It created a front for a conservative opposition party that had been drifting toward complacency and acted as political pressure to brake the ruling party’s unilateral actions.

Ultimately, it opened the door for discussions on re-amending the Private School Act and was recorded as a political turning point that signaled the start of the Roh Moo-hyun administration’s lame-duck phase.

An extra-parliamentary struggle with a clear goal is not mere political whining. It is a constitutional means of pressure to stop the tyranny of a legislative majority.

When there is a justification the public can accept, a clear goal, and the resolve to hold out until the end, extra-parliamentary struggle becomes not noise outside the assembly, but national pressure that stops the tyranny of the majority inside.

The same applies to the People Power Party's potential resolution for mass resignation.

A boycott without justification will fail. But if clear goals are set—such as the right to recommend a special counsel for the June 3 disenfranchisement, normalization of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, and election management reform—the narrative changes.

It can become a form of political pressure that re-opens the door to the truth, which was locked inside the National Assembly, before the eyes of the public.

However, the People Power Party must clarify the order of its demands.

The first demand must be the People Power Party’s right to recommend a special counsel for the June 3 disenfranchisement incident. The right to recommend is the core.

The demand for the Legislation and Judiciary Committee chairmanship cannot be left out. However, if that is put at the forefront, the mass resignation will look like a fight over committee chair positions. What the public is angry about is not the distribution of seats.

The questions the public is asking are: "Was my vote properly cast?", "Is the NEC qualified to manage elections?", and "Is the political sphere covering up the truth?"

Therefore, the demand for the Legislation and Judiciary Committee chairmanship must be explained as a defensive institutional safeguard, not a demand for a position.

The Legislation and Judiciary Committee is the key gateway for discussions on the special counsel bill, election management reform, the establishment of dedicated judicial panels, and responses to the special counsel bill regarding "rigged prosecutions" (withdrawal of indictments). For the Democratic Party to hold the chairmanship while also controlling the special counsel recommendation right means they want to keep investigations, legislation, and institutional reform all under their majority rule.

The People Power Party should not say, "Give us the Legislation and Judiciary Committee chairmanship," but rather, "Normalize the Legislation and Judiciary Committee" so that the disenfranchisement special counsel cannot be blocked.

Blurring the battle line leads to failure. The People Power Party’s demands must be clear.

First, guarantee the People Power Party’s right to recommend a special counsel for the June 3 disenfranchisement incident. Second, normalize the Legislation and Judiciary Committee to prevent the blocking of the special counsel and election management reform. Third, withdraw the Democratic Party's unilateral formation of the assembly. Fourth, scrap the special counsel bill on "rigged prosecutions." If this order is reversed, the mass resignation will lose its public justification.

Mass resignation must not be a show. It must not end with a single resolution from a general meeting of lawmakers. Every individual lawmaker must draft a signed and sealed resignation letter. Proportional representatives must even resolve succession issues for their successors. The party leadership must disclose the timing of the resignation submission, the conditions, the criteria for shifting to extra-parliamentary struggle, and the schedule for reporting to the public. It must be an execution plan, not just a resolution.

The moment the People Power Party mentions mass resignation, the Democratic Party will attack it as a "parliamentary boycott," "ignoring public livelihood," and "extreme politics."

But let us ask: Is demanding a proper investigation into the disenfranchisement allegations "extreme"? Is the demand for public verification of ballot boxes, counting records, remaining ballots, CCTV, and servers/networks "ignoring public livelihood"? What is more important to the people's livelihood than confirming the integrity of every single vote cast by citizens?

The People Power Party must no longer express its anger only through words.

Criticizing the NEC, the Democratic Party, and demanding the right to recommend a special counsel is not enough. The public is already fighting on the streets, at rally sites, and online, risking their own time. What, then, are the lawmakers willing to risk?

What the People Power Party lawmakers must protect is not their seats, but the people's right to vote.

If a lawmaker's badge is a tool to protect the constitutional order, then the decision to lay down that badge can also be a way to protect the constitutional order. If they ignore the people's votes to protect their own seats, that is the true abandonment of politics.

The People Power Party should immediately hold a general meeting of lawmakers to make mass resignation an official party platform. And they must clearly declare to the public:

"If the People Power Party’s right to recommend a special counsel for the June 3 disenfranchisement incident is not realized, and if the Legislation and Judiciary Committee remains a tool to block the special counsel and election reform, we will fight by staking our parliamentary seats."

What is needed now is not safe calculation. If the People Power Party is an opposition party, it must stand on the final defensive line of the constitutional order. Mass resignation is not the end. It is the beginning of standing before the people once again.