Jang Dong-hyuk, leader of the People Power Party, meets with senior lawmakers at the National Assembly on February 26. 2026.2.26 [Photo=Yonhap News]

Seventeen senior lawmakers, each serving four terms or more, met with Jang Dong-hyuk, leader of the People Power Party. While some media outlets sensationalized this as internal strife, the actual content of the meeting was different. 

Only one individual, lawmaker Cho Kyeong-tae, publicly called for a clear separation from former President Yoon Suk-yeol. The core of the meeting revolved around concerns regarding the Democratic Party's legislative dominance and anxieties about the upcoming local elections.

This is precisely where the problem lies. 

The fact that the senior lawmakers gathered and produced only 'concerns' rather than an action plan is the issue. 

Politics begins with an accurate assessment of the situation, but if that assessment doesn't lead to action, it remains mere commentary, not politics. 

The recent scene where Floor Leader Song Eon-seok expressed he felt "backstabbed" after his expectation of Democratic Party consent for the appointment of a standing committee member for the Broadcasting, Media, and Communications Committee – a position allocated to the People Power Party – failed to materialize, is symbolic. 

The attitude of attempting to cooperate is not inherently problematic. However, maintaining the same expectation in the face of repeatedly being thwarted approaches naivety rather than strategy. 

Legislative overreach by a party with a majority of seats, the erosion of consensus structures, and the proliferation of political interpretations surrounding judicial proceedings. All these phenomena are moving beyond simple political wrangling into a crisis of systemic trust. 

The reason for the opposition party's existence is to strategize for governing, but to achieve that, they must first prioritize safeguarding the balance of power. 

Regaining power may be the objective, but protecting the system is the fundamental duty. 

Some within conservative circles are calling for "resumption of Lee Jae-myung's trial," urging the normalization of judicial processes. 

Regardless of whether that outcry is right or wrong, it is clear that it is an issue directly linked to systemic trust. 

This is why it is said that if 100 lawmakers take collective action, one million people will follow. Politics is driven by symbolism. 

The position of a senior lawmaker is not merely about seniority. It is a position that takes responsibility first in times of crisis. 

If we only repeat the phrase "legislative dictatorship" while a dominant power escapes checks and balances, public empathy will not be generated. Warnings without action have little resonance. 

The question here is not about election strategy. 

Elections can be lost. Because they can be recontested. 

However, liberal democracy is different. 

When legislative power escapes checks and balances, cooperation devolves into a mere formality, and the power of the majority is mistaken for absolute legitimacy, democracy gradually weakens. That process is quiet, but the consequences are fatal. 

Despite this, the political sphere remains relatively quiet. 

This quietness is perhaps even more surprising. 

Democracy does not crumble amidst noise. It sometimes weakens in silence. When debates disappear and principles are sidelined behind strategy, the system begins to fracture. 

What is needed now is not calculated silence but responsible choices. 

One can lose votes. But one must not lose principles. 

The question posed to our politics today is clear. 

What is more important? 

"Elections, or liberal democracy?"