People Power Party representatives Kim Do-eup and Lee Jong-bae attend a meeting of senior lawmakers with four or more terms on July 13 (left). Representative Jang Dong-hyuk arrives at a press conference marking his first anniversary as party leader at the central party headquarters in Yeouido, Seoul, on the 26th (right). [Photo = Yonhap News]

Senior lawmakers of the People Power Party with four or more terms in office have gathered. They reportedly agreed that "the party cannot win the 2028 general election in its current state." While their diagnosis was serious, the prescription they offered was pathetic.

Their requests were to hold regular meetings with Representative Jang Dong-hyuk, to regularize these meetings if possible, and to carefully reconsider the disciplinary actions against lawmakers Cho Kyoung-tae, Kwon Young-jin, Seo Beom-soo, and Jin Jong-oh, as they could undermine the party's harmony and unity.

If they have concluded that winning the general election is difficult, then the causes and alternatives must follow. If Representative Jang's direction is wrong, they should point out exactly what is wrong; if there is an issue with the leadership structure, they should arrive at a conclusion—whether by demanding a change or by proposing supplementary measures. If the direct election system for local party chairpersons is the problem, they should clearly state their position for or against it and propose a better alternative.

However, none of this happened. While they warned of the possibility of defeat in the general election, they failed to say what needs to be changed or how.

9 out of 19, and even they were not in unison

Of the 19 People Power Party lawmakers with four or more terms, only nine attended the meeting: Joo Ho-young, Kim Gi-hyeon, Na Kyung-won, Kim Do-eup, Kim Sang-hoon, Park Dae-chul, Yu Eui-dong, Yun Jae-ok, and Lee Jong-bae. It did not even reach a majority.

The opinions of the attendees were not unanimous, either. While many argued that the disciplinary actions could harm party harmony, counterarguments were raised that the party should not just speak with one voice, and some pointed out that the disciplined lawmakers should also make efforts toward harmony.

There was no discussion regarding the future of Representative Jang. They failed to form any consensus on the direct election system for party members to choose local party chairpersons—a plan Representative Jang reaffirmed his intention to pursue during his first-anniversary press conference.

It is also difficult to group the 10 absent members as a single opposition faction. Lawmaker Cho Kyoung-tae stated he would accept the disciplinary action taken against him. It was not clearly revealed whether the other absentees favor or oppose regular meetings or the reconsideration of disciplinary actions.

Neither the attendees nor the absentees are unified. This means the 19 senior lawmakers cannot even produce a minimal joint diagnosis regarding the party’s path forward.

Does meeting the leader often show the path to winning the election?

What is even more difficult to understand is that their core demand was for regular meetings with the party leader.

Are they implying that the party is in this state because they couldn't meet with the leader? Will increasing the frequency of meetings boost sagging approval ratings or create a winning strategy for the general election? Senior lawmakers may request meetings with the party leader, but that cannot be the conclusion of a grave diagnosis that "winning the general election is difficult as things stand."

As senior lawmakers, before asking the leader to call them in, they should first put forth their own judgments. They should state whether the general election can be fought under Representative Jang's leadership, whether public support can be expanded with the current direction, and what balance needs to be struck between member-centered reform and public opinion.

They must also propose how to keep the government and the ruling party in check. They should provide answers on what strategies they will use to operate parliamentary standing committees and review budgets, how they will regain support from the capital region and the youth, and how to normalize the party's policy and strategy functions, including the Yeouido Institute.

That is what the public expects to hear from a gathering of four-, five-, and six-term lawmakers. Requesting regular meetings and reconsideration of discipline may be a starting point, but it is not a solution befitting the diagnosis that "they cannot win the general election this way."

What seniors need is not to step down

Representative Jang countered the criticizing seniors not by discussing a change in leadership, but by implying that it would be more helpful for the general election if they declared they would not run for re-election and paved the way for new talent.

However, this argument also misses the point. There is no justification for them to withdraw from the race or step down simply because they have served many terms. Senior lawmakers are also representatives who were nominated through the choice of party members and elected to the National Assembly by voters. If they possess experience, expertise, and regional representation, they can run again.

The fact of being a multi-term lawmaker is not a fault in itself. Demanding them to step down unconditionally by treating political experience as a liability rather than an asset is less a matter of accountability and more akin to discrimination based on seniority.

What the public demands of senior lawmakers is not sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice. It is to show where and how they will use their long political experience and influence within the party.

What seniors need is not to step down, but to fulfill their roles. They should clearly warn the party when it goes astray, offer alternatives when the leadership loses its way, and mediate when factions collide. They should state their judgments publicly, push them through internal party procedures and actions, and then be politically judged on the results.

That is responsibility. And responsibility does not necessarily mean not running for office.

The problem is not that they won't step down, but that they won't move

The crisis facing the People Power Party is not light. It is failing to gain a reflected benefit despite the failures of the government and the ruling party. Even as clashes over disciplinary actions and local party restructuring continue within the party, the policy alternatives and general election strategies to show the public remain unclear.

In times like this, what senior lawmakers should be doing is not gathering in back rooms to share their worries. If Representative Jang's direction is correct, they should empower him and compensate for any shortcomings. If it is wrong, they must reveal what is wrong and why, and correct it. If they judge that a change in leadership is necessary, they should demand it responsibly. If they have no intention to do so, they should cease ambiguous words and actions that appear to be attempts to shake the leadership.

Retreating to a conclusion of "let's meet and talk often" without either supporting or opposing is not political wisdom. It is merely a safe middle ground to avoid taking responsibility.

The public is not asking senior lawmakers to give up their seats. They are asking them to state where the party should head in line with their long experience, to correct the leadership when it goes wrong, and to mediate when conflict arises.

They are not being criticized because they are multi-term lawmakers who refuse to step down, but because they are failing to fulfill roles befitting their seniority. The problem is not that they are not stepping down, but that they are not taking action.

They have spread their wings, but showed neither direction nor strength. This meeting was not a soaring flight by senior lawmakers to save the party, but a pathetic flapping of wings by figures who have lost their purpose.