[Editorial] Drive against reelection

One of the first things a politician elected to the National Assembly does when his election euphoria recedes is to tailor all his public behavior in such a way as to ensure his reelection four years later. To him, nothing else counts as much.

This explains why moderate lawmakers affiliated with the main opposition Democratic Party stopped talking one day after they proposed a compromise over the stalled process of ratifying the Korean-U.S. free trade agreement. The lawmakers became the target of an attack by die-hard opponents of the treaty, who said they would launch a campaign to vote against them in the April parliamentary elections.

On Tuesday, news reports said a group of moderate opposition lawmakers were signing up fellow lawmakers for a compromise on the most controversial clause of the treaty, one concerning the settlement of investor-state disputes. The lawmakers were proposing not to block the ratification process when Washington committed itself to starting negotiations on the clause with Seoul. The ruling Grand National Party welcomed the move, urging the opposition party to formalize it as an official policy.

But the proposal for a compromise lost much momentum when it was made public. It did not take long before the lawmakers received a deluge of protest telephone calls and SNS messages from critics, many of them promising to launch a campaign against their reelection. They apparently took the threat seriously when they stopped collecting signatures and refused to make any more comment on the issue.

Such an unruly, unlawful action is also impeding debate on the free trade accord that may otherwise proceed outside of the National Assembly. Quite a few university faculty members and other experts on international trade are reportedly refusing to make any on-the-record comment in favor of free trade with the United States. They are quoted as saying they were withholding public comments out of fear for their personal safety.

Campaigns against reelections are unlawful. But threats to launch such campaigns are not infrequent. One recent case involved pharmacists, who opposed the sale of over-the-counter pharmaceuticals in places other than drugstores. In January, they threatened to launch a campaign against the reelection of a lawmaker, who was doubling as the minister of health and welfare, if she proceeded with her plan to permit their sale at supermarkets.

The proposal appeared to be derailed when the health minister backed down. But she had to reverse her decision when she was reprimanded by President Lee Myung-bak.

With the revision bill to the law governing the sale of pharmaceuticals now awaiting action at the National Assembly, the Korean Pharmaceutical Association has started to flex its muscles in an attempt to block the legislation. The special interest of pharmacists says it will launch a weeklong campaign against it on Nov. 21, which may or may not include a threat to block the reelection of lawmakers voting for the bill.

It is a legitimate means of political participation for a voter to write, make a phone call or sending an SNS message to a lawmaker from his electoral district to vent his grievance on an issue of national concern, such as the proposed ratification of the free trade accord. He may also urge like-minded people to follow suit. Such political activism does not hamper but enlivens debate, which is necessary in the process of building a consensus for lawmaking.

But it is a criminal offense for a voter to launch a campaign against the reelection of a lawmaker who acts or is deemed to act against his wishes. One such case involved a man who identified 19 lawmakers as targets of an attack that he said he would launch during the run-up to the next parliamentary elections, scheduled for April 11. Last month, a trial court in Gyeonggi Province ruled him guilty and slapped a 1 million won fine on him, as demanded by the prosecutor.

Nothing is a more effective defense against such illegal campaigning than strict adjudication. The court will have to deal sternly with those intentionally committing a criminal offense with regard to the upcoming elections. None of them deserve any leniency.