Jang Dong-hyuk, the leader of the People Power Party, delivers his opening remarks at a Supreme Council meeting held at the National Assembly on the 27th. [Photo = Yonhap News]

Calls for the resignation of Jang Dong-hyuk, the leader of the People Power Party, are intensifying. Critics argue that the party leader's leadership is faltering ahead of the local elections.

Controversies surrounding his U.S. trip, explanations for meetings, confusion within the party's explanations, distance from local election candidates, and a decline in approval ratings are all being discussed simultaneously.

On the 24th, Jang stated, "I will do my best to conclude the local elections and be judged fairly," dismissing the possibility of resignation before the June 3rd local elections. However, the resignation calls have already become a major issue both within and outside the party.

A Leader Who Has Made Himself an Outcast

There are undoubtedly aspects for which Jang is to blame.

At a time when local elections are imminent, the party leader's actions should have been focused on supporting candidates, unifying messages, and refining election strategies.

However, the controversy over his U.S. trip took center stage, giving the impression that the leader was not in control of the election campaign. The process of explanation was also not smooth. The party's official explanation and the leader's explanation appeared to diverge, and the leadership controversy grew wider in the gap.

The more fundamental problem is the inconsistency between words and actions.

Immediately after the "End of Election Fraud" discussion, Jang mentioned the redesign of the election system and the formation of a party-level election monitoring task force.

At the time, he interpreted this issue as "the public's high interest in a fair election system" and stated, "The issue of changing the election system so that the public can trust it has become an agenda that can no longer be delayed."

If that is the case, then a task force should have been actually formed afterward, and the demand for election verification should have been organized as an agenda for institutional improvement.

This is not to say that election fraud should be adopted as party policy. It means that after distinguishing between claims that assert election result manipulation and demands for election system verification, the People Power Party should have presented responsible institutional improvement proposals.

However, it is not clear whether Jang's remarks led to clear organizational structures and continuous activities at the party level. If an agenda was proposed, it should have been proven through execution. If the words were not meant for execution, he should have been more cautious from the beginning.

The stance on impeachment and martial law is also similar.

On January 7th, Jang stated that former President Yoon Suk-yeol's December 3rd emergency martial law was a "wrongful means" and apologized, declaring that he would move forward into the future by crossing the "river of martial law and impeachment."

If an apology is necessary, it should explain what was wrong. It should have clarified whether the means of martial law were the problem, the purpose was the problem, or to what extent the party should be responsible. Conversely, if he believed an apology was not necessary, he should have explained why that demand for an apology was unfair.

However, Jang failed to articulate a clear message that could persuade both sides.

An ambiguous apology and subsequent change in stance failed to gain trust from those demanding impeachment procedures, as well as supporters who questioned the impeachment process. It was not clear enough for hardline supporters, and it appeared to those seeking to expand to the center as an individual who had not sufficiently distanced themselves.

The most dangerous position in politics is not the middle ground that persuades both sides, but the middle ground that is suspected by both sides. Jang stood precisely in that position.

However, stopping here means only looking at half the problem.

The essence of the calls for Jang Dong-hyuk's resignation is not a simple matter of his position. There is a deeper question.

To what extent will the People Power Party acknowledge its supporters? And are the editorials and columns criticizing the party from outside truly advice for the victory of a conservative party, or are they political pressure to redraw the boundaries of the conservative party's support base?

Is Separation a Matter of Course?

Recent criticisms of Jang have a recurring premise: that the People Power Party must distance itself from former President Yoon Suk-yeol to survive. This is the so-called "separation from Yoon." Demands are also made to break ties with the "Yoon-again" faction and to firmly draw a line with claims of election fraud.

The problem is that these arguments are presented too easily as matters of course.

Is "separation from Yoon" a matter of course in itself, or is it election engineering ahead of local elections? If it is a demand of the rule of law, then standards must be presented. It must be clarified whether President Yoon Suk-yeol's actions are incompatible with the constitutional order of a conservative party, and whether these standards are legal or political judgments.

Conversely, if it is election engineering, a different explanation is needed. It must be demonstrated whether distancing oneself from former President Yoon Suk-yeol actually leads to electoral victory for the People Power Party, and what evidence suggests that expanding to the center is greater than the defection of core supporters.

Value judgments and election engineering are different.

However, some editorials and columns mix these two. While outwardly speaking of reform and the rule of law, the actual logic is closer to "cut ties because it's disadvantageous for the election."

In that case, separation from Yoon becomes a calculation, not a principle. This is not to say that calculation is bad. Since a political party is an organization that contests elections, calculation is also necessary. However, calculations should not be disguised as principles.

Exclusion or Persuasion?

The question of how to view the people who are "Yoon-again" is also similar.

 The political stance of unconditionally defending all of former President Yoon Suk-yeol's actions and the sentiment of conservative voters who have questions about the impeachment, investigation, and trial processes are not the same.

The argument that the former cannot be adopted as the party's official stance, and the argument that the latter must also be pushed out of the People Power Party's support base are entirely different issues.

A political party is not an institution that morally screens voters.

A political party is an organization that attempts to gain power through elections by organizing diverse dissatisfactions, expectations, wounds, and demands into political language. Cutting off uncomfortable supporters may seem like an easy solution, but in reality, it can be the most dangerous solution in politics.

It is possible to say that the People Power Party needs to adjust its hardline messages. However, the moment a certain group of people is designated as "대상 to be disconnected from," the party abandons its function of persuasion.

Demand for Verification is Not Taboo

The election fraud controversy also needs to be distinguished.

Claims that the election results were manipulated carry a strict burden of proof. It must be presented who, when, where, how, to what extent, and how it affected the election results.

However, demanding transparent verification of the election system is a different matter.

Demands for checks on early voting, mail-in voting, vote counting equipment, server management, observation procedures, and voter registration lists can all be raised within democracy. Demands for election verification are not the same as rejecting election results.

Rather, verification is an institutional mechanism to reduce distrust. Trust in elections is not built by saying "believe us." One can only believe if one can verify.

At this point, the flow of public opinion cannot be ignored.

According to a report on a survey commissioned by the Free Democratic Citizens' Council and conducted by Yeoreumokakkojeong in March of last year, 44.1% responded that election fraud suspicions "should be thoroughly investigated," and 10.4% responded that they "should be partially investigated." Combining the opinions that investigation is necessary, it was 54.5%. The response "no need to investigate" was 42.9%.

This does not mean that the majority of the public concluded that election fraud occurred. However, it is clear that public opinion favoring institutional verification of election suspicions was by no means marginal.

The explosive interest in the "End of Election Fraud" discussion, broadcast on YouTube, is also in the same context.

This debate, which pitted Lee Jun-seok, leader of the Reform Party, against Jeon Han-gil, lasted over 7 hours, with real-time viewers exceeding 300,000, and the cumulative views exceeded 5 million within a day. Subsequently, cumulative views exceeded 6 million and approached 7 million.

These numbers do not prove the correctness or incorrectness of specific claims. However, they show that public interest has grown to such an extent that demands for election verification cannot simply be dismissed as "far-right" or "Yoon-again."

Judgments and Trust Are Different

Then how can this reality be explained?

Replacing all the numerous suspicious materials and evidence with the single word "insufficient" and saying that the Supreme Court's rulings have ended the suspicions is not enough.

It is a different matter for the judiciary not to accept claims due to insufficient evidence and for the public to demand the possibility of verifying the election management process.

A judgment may be a legal decision, but trust is built through explanation and public verification.

The moment that demands for election verification are bundled with claims of confirmed election fraud and excluded, the establishment places itself on the side of refusing verification.

The essence of the Jang Dong-hyuk controversy also lies here.

What the People Power Party needs to ask is not whether to adopt election fraud as party policy. It is whether to provide verifiable answers to citizens who have doubts about the election system, or to push them out of the supporter base.

On this point, Jang's responsibility does not disappear.

He raised the issue but failed to push it through execution, and he apologized but failed to explain the criteria. That is why he became a target of criticism.

However, Jang's responsibility and the justification for resignation calls are separate issues.

Just because Jang is lacking does not mean all arguments criticizing him are automatically correct. This should be scrutinized even more strictly, especially if those criticisms tend to exclude a portion of the People Power Party's supporters.

The Essence is the Boundary Line

The crisis of the People Power Party is not just about one person, Jang Dong-hyuk. It is a question of how a conservative party understands its supporters.

Expansion to the center is necessary. However, if expanding to the center means excluding core supporters, it is not expansion but dissolution.

Mobilizing core supporters is also necessary. However, if this means unconditionally accepting all allegations, it is also an abandonment of the party's responsibility.

Therefore, the question that needs to be asked now is not simply "Should Jang Dong-hyuk step down?"

Will the People Power Party push out of its supporter base citizens who supported former President Yoon Suk-yeol, citizens who have questions about the procedures after impeachment, and citizens who demand verification of the election system? Or will it organize the rational parts of their concerns into institutional language?

The essence of the Jang Dong-hyuk controversy is not "separation from Yoon." The essence is the boundary line of the conservative party.

Who draws that line, by what criteria, and what will be explained to the citizens pushed outside the line? If this question is not answered, the same arguments will be repeated even if the leader is changed.