Kim Min-soo, Supreme Council member of the People Power Party, speaks at the 'Republic of Korea Free YouTube General Federation Forum' co-hosted by conservative YouTubers on the 9th. [Photo = YouTube Capture]

Political evaluations are divided over the remarks made by Kim Min-soo, Supreme Council member of the People Power Party, on the 9th. 

While some call it a “realistic strategic shift,” others criticize it as a “change of tune.” However, this debate misses the core issue. 

The essence of the problem lies not in strategy, but in judgment. 

More precisely, it is an error in judgment to have politics prematurely settle matters that are still pending judicial and verification processes.

He stated at the ‘Republic of Korea Free YouTube General Federation Forum’ co-hosted by conservative YouTubers, “We cannot win the local elections by shouting ‘Yoon Again’.” 

Regarding fraudulent elections, he also defined it as “isolated clarity,” saying, “We have shouted for 10 years, but the scope has not widened.”

Although these two statements seem to address different topics, they share a common perception. Both ‘Yoon Again’ and fraudulent elections were reduced to ‘slogans that do not help elections.’ This is where the error in judgment occurs.

First, let’s consider the judgment on ‘Yoon Again’. 

‘Yoon Again’ is not an election slogan. Rather than a mere political slogan calling for the return of a specific individual, it is closer to an emotional plea that politics should not reach a conclusion before judicial rulings are made.

In other words, the core of ‘Yoon Again’ is the assertion, “The judgment is not yet complete.” 

The moment this is judged solely by the language of electoral advantage or disadvantage, an error of confusing emotion with slogan occurs.

The date for the first trial ruling on former President Yoon Suk-yeol is the 19th. It leaves a sense of regret, wondering “What was the hurry?”

The judgment on fraudulent elections is similar. 

Council Member Kim’s discourse was settled based on the outcome of “shouting for 10 years without widening the scope,” but this is an interpretation that reverses the cause and effect.

It overlooked the fact that the reason the scope did not widen was not due to the falsity of the claim itself, but because the structures of verification, documentation, and access were institutionally blocked.

It is a more accurate interpretation that the question did not expand because it was sealed, not because the question itself was flawed.

He overlooked the fact that public trust in the National Election Commission is at around 50%, and that the essence of fraudulent elections is verification.

A bigger problem is the frame that labels both of these issues as ‘isolated clarity’. 

Clarity arises from definitive statements, but what ‘Yoon Again’ and fraudulent elections pose are questions, not definitive statements. 

What makes the undecided uncomfortable is not the question itself, but politics that avoids the question and jumps to conclusions. 

An attitude of asking “Can it be verified?” and “Who is responsible?” rather than “Is it true or not?” is closer to the language of the undecided.

Council Member Kim stated, “To persuade the undecided, we must focus on institutional improvement,” but institutional improvement cannot begin by erasing the issues raised.

Discussions such as strengthening identity verification, verifying electronic systems, and documenting voting procedures are all matters that have emerged in public discourse because of the questions posed by ‘Yoon Again’ and fraudulent elections.

The moment these questions are dismissed as ‘detrimental to elections,’ even institutional improvement loses its political momentum.

Politics is both a technique for winning elections and, at the same time, a domain that bears the responsibility of withholding judgment until the time for judicial and verification processes is complete.

While strategies can change, politics that hastily settles judgments cannot leave behind trust. 

Neither ‘Yoon Again’ nor fraudulent elections are failed slogans.

They are questions that have yet to be answered.

There is a timing in politics. 

This statement has long been cited as a phrase that summarizes Kim Young-sam's political philosophy.

It points out that even a correct statement is not politics if it misses its timing, and that a correct judgment can be interpreted as evading responsibility if it is too early.

Council Member Kim Min-soo’s remarks on this day were too hasty in both timing and judgment. 

Kim Young | Editor-in-Chief, Hankooki Ilbo