A ballot shortage that occurred at some polling stations during the June 3 local elections has spread into a collapse of trust in the National Election Commission (NEC) and is now leading to legal disputes over the validity of the elections. The People Power Party's central party has filed election appeals in seven metropolitan regions, including Seoul and Gyeonggi, while its metropolitan governors have separately filed in four regions, putting a total of 11 areas under review. Under the Public Official Election Act, election appeals for local elections are reviewed separately by the National Election Commission and metropolitan and provincial election commissions depending on the type of election, and a decision must be made within 60 days from the date of filing. If a party objects to the NEC's decision, it can proceed to an election lawsuit or an election victory lawsuit within 10 days from the date of receiving the decision document. Metropolitan-level elections are handled in a single trial by the Supreme Court, while basic-level elections proceed to the Supreme Court after passing through the High Court.
The problem lies not in the procedure but in the circumstances of the entity that must bear it. Legally, the NEC judges first, and the courts deliver the final judgment if necessary. But the key question is how acceptable that judgment will be politically and socially. The NEC, driven into its greatest crisis of existence since democratization amid controversy over mismanagement, now bears the burden of a parliamentary investigation and sweeping reform demands all at once. It is doubtful whether it can calmly deliberate such a sensitive matter within 60 days. The more fundamental dilemma is that the NEC is both the arbiter of this dispute and the party that caused it. Since the institution responsible for election management is also the party embroiled in this management failure controversy, and must judge the flaws of the election itself, this appeal review carries the burden of a structural conflict of interest. Therefore, whichever way the decision falls, its neutral authority will be difficult to fully recognize, and political wrangling will be hard to avoid.
The courts are in no different a position. As factional confrontation and political polarization have deepened, our judiciary has already been dragged into countless political cases. As a result, it has borne the dual controversy of the "judicialization of politics," in which political conflict moves into the courtroom, and the "politicization of the judiciary," in which those rulings are again read along partisan lines. Recalling the memory of conflicts surrounding several recent rulings, even if the courts take over this case and reach a conclusion, the objections and social conflict that will follow are as clear as day. In the end, whether the NEC or the courts, the moment these institutions—which must base their existence on neutrality and fairness—take on this matter, they will once again be swept up in a political maelstrom, and their authority will be shaken along with it. And since trust, once shaken, erodes the legitimacy of the next election as well, the cost will by no means end with this single case.
That is why the essence ultimately lies in politics. Both the mismanaged election controversy and the cries on the streets appealing for violations of voting rights are, when examined closely, matters of procedural flaws arising in the process of representative democracy, in which voters elect their representatives. There is clearly room for legal dispute, but its nature is political before it is legal. An election is in itself the most political of institutions, and how to handle its flaws likewise lies in the realm of political choice—one that cannot be closed through the interpretation of legal provisions alone. This is not to diminish the meaning of legal procedures. Appeals and lawsuits are legitimate rights for contesting the validity of an election. But legal procedures alone cannot mend collapsed political trust. The very attitude of foisting onto independent institutions the political responsibility that parties should rightly bear, and reducing all disputes over legitimacy to the judgments of the NEC and the courts, is the starting point of a vicious cycle.
The path to breaking this vicious cycle, too, can only be the restoration of politics. The ruling and opposition parties must not leave the judgment on whether to hold re-elections to the clocks of the NEC and the courts alone. They must together design the truth-finding of the mismanagement, measures to prevent recurrence, and the direction of NEC reform, and build for themselves a framework of resolution that the public can accept. That is the role of responsible parties and political leaders.
What we expect from elections is surprisingly simple. Even amid intensified conflict, representatives are chosen through a fair competitive process, victory and defeat are cleanly accepted, and the representatives thus elected reconcile differences to forge compromise. This mismanaged election controversy, too, is merely one scene in which that promise has been put to the test. The ones who must provide the answer are, in the end, neither the NEC nor the courts, but the politicians we elected.
