hankyoreh

staff photographer)

“The Unified Progressive Party is a cancerous presence that threatens to collapse the Republic of Korea from within. We shouldn’t hesitate any longer in operating on it by disbanding the party.” - Minister of Justice Hwang Kyo-ahn

“The very act of presenting a difference of political opinion as ’hostile actions‘ is what undermines democracy.” - Unified Progressive Party leader Lee Jung-hee

The rhetoric remained harsh to the last. Minister of Justice Hwang Kyo-ahn and Unified Progressive Party (UPP) leader Lee Jung-hee both used very strong wording in the final arguments at a Nov. 25 trial at the Constitutional Court in Seoul on whether to disband the party, with Hwang going so far as the describe the UPP as “cancerous.”

The arguments came ten months after an unprecedented exchange in a confrontation between the defendants and their accusers back in January. In the meantime, the pile of documents before the Constitutional Court judges has only grown. Case records stretching to some 170,000 A4 pages were heaped in front of the bench. As plaintiff, the Ministry of Justice submitted 2,907 documents; the defendant UPP submitted 908. Deposition records were also included for 18 witnesses and testifiers. Some 550 books were included among the heap.

The order of the day on Nov. 25 was for both sides to summarize more than a year’s worth of arguments and make one last plea to the judges.

The administration’s claim in a nutshell has been that the UPP is trying to bring about a North Korean-style socialist regime and using violent means to pursue revolutionary goals. The “progressive democracy” mentioned in the party program, it argues, was modeled - on orders from Pyongyang - on former North Korean leader Kim Il-sung’s concept of the same name, with the same goals as North Korea’s own revolutionary strategy for the South. Representing the administration, party disbanding task force team leader Jeong Jeom-sik called progressive democracy “the first stage in achieving North Korean-style socialism.”

The UPP has countered that the program was adopted after a decision at a June 2011 policy convention to remove a reference to “carrying on and developing socialist ideals and principals” - meaning the content was, if anything, toned down.

“The decision to use the phrase ’progressive democracy‘ was made in the sense of encompassing the three values of autonomy, newness, and progressiveness,” explained attorney Kim Seon-su, representing the UPP.

“Their model for progressive democracy is not North Korea, but the left-wing administrations of South America,” Kim added.

The question of how the judges interpret “progressive democracy” now looks to be an important factor in the outcome of the case.

Another of the administration’s claims is that the party has the goal of taking power through violent means. Its main evidence has been the insurrection conspiracy and instigation case involving lawmaker Lee Seok-ki, which is currently pending judgment from the Supreme Court. Lee was charged with conspiring with party members at a May 2012 political talk - the so-called “Hapjeong gathering” - to organize a violent revolution in the event of an outbreak of war. His first trial ended with convictions on both charges of instigation and conspiracy to commit insurrection. The appeals trial upheld only the instigation ruling, acquitting Lee of conspiracy on the grounds that the so-called “plot” never reached the point of an “agreement to execute.”

Both the administration and the UPP have been trying to spin the situation in their favor. The Ministry of Justice has argued that an underground “revolutionary organization” (RO) and holdovers from the former National Democratic Revolutionary Party (NDRP) entered the UPP and joined forces with it to pursue a violent revolution. The UPP has said that the so-called RO does not exist at all - citing an appeals court ruling to that effect in the Lee case - and that the party never supported Lee‘s actions.

The administration also pointed to a reference to “the right to resist” in a UPP strategy report as proof that the party is attempting to seize power through violent means. The party countered that it is trying to achieve power through legitimate election, and that the “right to resist” does not refer to any violent uprising or repudiation of the Constitutional order.

The fate of the UPP lawmakers’ seats in the National Assembly is also at stake with the Constitutional Court ruling. In addition to requesting the party’s disbandment, the Justice Minister has also asked for a hearing on whether its parliamentary representatives can keep their positions. With its survival as a party in jeopardy, the UPP’s main focus has been on blocking the decision to disband it. But another concern is that such a ruling would strip it of its space in the National Assembly, which could lead to a drastic reduction of power.

One possible strategy for keeping the proportional representation seats of Lee, Kim Jae-yeon, and Kim Mi-Hyui in anticipation of a Constitutional Court ruling to remove them from the National Assembly would be to evict them from the party beforehand. But that approach appears unlikely, since it would create the contradictory situation of abandoning the party while still claiming to fight for its identity and ideas. UPP spokesperson Hong Sung-kyu underscored the message, saying it was “inappropriate to have discussions right now on whether or not to dismiss proportional representatives.”

According to the Political Parties Act, once the Constitutional Court disbands a party, it cannot be reformed with the same or similar programs and basic policies. But whether it is realistic to ban any and all acts of voluntary association by people with similar political goals is a different matter. Speaking at a recent party convention, UPP floor leader Oh Byung-yun declared, “If we get disband, we just have to reband.”

The court gave no indication of its sentencing schedule when final pleas were heard. Constitutional Court President Park Han-chul announced at a recent parliamentary audit that he would try to have a sentence out within the year, but a decision in 2015 is not out of the question. Another possibility is that the Supreme Court could time the date of its rulings on National Security Law violation cases - including Lee’s - to coincide with the Constitutional Court’s judgment.

Outside the Constitutional Court in Seoul’s Jongno district

By Lee Kyung-mi and Lee You Ju-hyun, staff reporters

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]