The Hall of Commemoration at the National 5·18 Democracy Cemetery in Gwangju. While nameplates remain, the list of meritorious individuals, not disclosed to the public, continues to be a question mark. Graphic by Hankook Ilbo

Table of Contents

① Hidden Names ― Meritorious Individuals of the 5·18 Democracy Movement

② Hidden Charts ― The Compelling Electoral System

③ From Hidden Democracy to Open Democracy

At the National 5·18 Democracy Cemetery in Gwangju, nameplates and memorial tablets bearing the names of victims are densely placed. However, the official list of meritorious individuals managed by the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs is not publicly disclosed. While the scope and scale can be confirmed through statistics, citizens cannot know the individual recipients.

Despite the social consensus on commemoration and respect, the lack of transparency in the system is instead fostering distrust.

In May 1980, Gwangju cried out for democracy in the face of the martial law army's guns and bayonets. Their sacrifices and contributions were later institutionalized as national honor through the 'Act on the Compensation for Victims of the May 18 Democratization Movement' (1990) and the 'Act on the Respect for Meritorious Individuals of the May 18 Democratization Movement' (2002).

The law defines "meritorious individuals of the May 18 democratization movement" as "those who suffered damages such as death, injury, detention, or dismissal in connection with the democratization movement, or those who contributed to the advancement of democracy."

However, the abstract expression "contributed to the advancement of democracy" has led to interpretation disputes, further deepening the ambiguity of the system.

While the Supreme Court has made a narrow interpretation in individual cases, stating that "simple crowd participation is difficult to recognize as a contribution," the Constitutional Court has allowed a broad interpretation, stating that "legislative and administrative discretion is wide."

With even the highest judicial bodies showing divergent stances, the line dividing "who is a meritorious individual" has varied depending on legal and political interpretations.

Official figures are announced regularly. As of July 31, 2025, there are a total of 4,601 meritorious individuals of the 5·18 Democracy Movement. Of these, 3,493 are individuals themselves and 1,108 are first-priority bereaved families. In detail, there are 159 deceased or missing persons, 2,802 injured (2,102 individuals + 700 bereaved families), and 1,640 victims of detention, dismissal, etc. (1,391 individuals + 249 bereaved families).

What is noteworthy is the trend of change. The number of registered individuals, which was 4,406 as of September 2020, increased by approximately 200 to 4,601 as of July 2025.

However, this is not simply due to an increase in new meritorious individuals. The number of direct victims has decreased annually, and the total sum has risen due to an increase in bereaved family registrations.

As time passes, the voices of the direct victims disappear, and the structural contradiction of the system being reorganized around bereaved families is being revealed.

The scale of compensation is also substantial. Compensation payments disbursed since the 1990s alone amounted to 250 billion won (as of 2016), and subsequently, tens of billions of won more were paid through judgments and additional compensation. In 2024, the Supreme Court confirmed an additional compensation of 43 billion won for victims of the 5·18 movement. In addition, medical, educational, employment, and pension support totaling hundreds of billions of won is provided annually.

From the public's perspective, the issue is not merely a financial burden. The fact that "vast amounts of tax money are being invested when it is unknown who is a meritorious individual" fuels distrust. Although the scope and scale are disclosed, the legitimacy of the system is instead being shaken in a reality where the list remains closed.

The non-disclosure of the list breeds political conflict.

The conservative camp claims that "fake meritorious individuals are included" and demands the disclosure of the list, while the progressive camp opposes it citing "infringement of victims' honor and privacy."

The pursuit of truth is pushed to the side, and the controversy is consumed as a tool for political debate. The names of the victims and the honor of their families are wounded again in the process.

The nameplates engraved at the Gwangju National Cemetery are a symbol of commemoration, but they do not guarantee the reliability of the entire system. While some names have been revealed, the complete list remains closed.

Individual honor and privacy are important values guaranteed by the Constitution.

However, the reliability of democratic institutions is also the foundation that supports the existence of a national community.

The controversy surrounding the list of meritorious individuals of the 5·18 Democracy Movement is ultimately a question of how to harmonize these two values.

Therefore, a wise judgment by the Supreme Court is needed, one that not only addresses political disputes over disclosure but also considers the balance between protecting personal information and the benefits of disclosure.

The trust in democracy can be restored not through political gains and losses, but through precise legal interpretation and social consensus.

The system for meritorious individuals of the 5·18 Democracy Movement stands at the boundary between social consensus and distrust. What is needed for trust is not the statistics or compensation amounts from the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, but transparency that the public can verify.

This structurally resembles the controversy surrounding the electoral system. To revive trust in democratic institutions, we must now directly confront the issue of 'disclosure,' not just 'numbers.'

#HiddenDemocracy #518MeritoriousIndividuals #NonDisclosureOfList #TaxControversy #CompensationAmount #MinistryOfPatriotsAndVeteransAffairs #SocialDistrust #SupremeCourt #ConstitutionalCourt #DemocraticTrust