Kim Yun-gi, Lee Dong-young, Lee Jeong-mi, Jeong Ho-jin, and Cho Seong-joo (in alphabetical order), who were running for the 7th national simultaneous party direct election to elect the new party leader of the Justice Party, clashed in the first debate on the 4th.
At a debate held at the main building of the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul on this afternoon, the five party representative candidates fought fiercely over the innovation and re-establishment of the Justice Party, which is in the biggest crisis since its foundation, and how to win the 2024 general election.
Candidate Jeong-mi Lee emphasized “strong leadership, leadership that wins,” while Candidate Ho-jin Jeong said, “I will become a party member representative with the party members.” Candidate Jo Seong-joo said, “I will leave various discussions, debates and possibilities for the future of progressive politics through the party representative election.” Candidate Kim Yoon-gi said, “I will build up the political, Justice Party and social movements that will make the 7th Republic.”
The main task of the re-establishment is?
In a common question about the priority tasks and plans for the re-establishment of the party, each candidate mentioned reforming the party name, establishing a clear identity, and joining the party.
Candidate Ho-jin Jeong said, “How can we strengthen local organizations and restore people’s trust when there are no party members? Except for the name of the party, I will promote the re-establishment of the party based on the five promises I made.” He promised to introduce coalition politics and a proportional representation midterm evaluation system.
Candidate Jo Seong-ju said, “The reason why our policies and lines continue to be confused is because there is no line or ideology. We need a flag that allows us to clearly understand what we are aiming for,” he said.
Candidate Lee Dong-young said, “The first stage will reorganize the internal organization of the party, and the second stage will be a time for a full-fledged re-establishment that will expand the party’s confines and move toward Korean social democracy. We will prepare for the third zone banquet centering on universal common values such as transition and gender equality,” he said.
Candidate Kim Yoon-gi said, “I will establish a clear party identity and reorganize the party’s organization to be regional.” .
Candidate Jeong-mi Lee said, “The three letters of the re-establishment party are being talked about like a universal key. In order to mobilize the power, we will start with the 10,000-member party membership project that can expand our internal affairs.”
Controversy over reform of proportional representation election system
Kim Yoon-gi “100% non-competitive strategy list, the party leader will wield the right to nominate”
Jo Seong-ju “Proportional list by region, sharing proportional seats between factions”
The party leader elected through this election will prepare for the 2024 general election. In this regard, there was a debate among the candidates about the reform of the proportional representation election system.
Candidate Yoon-gi Kim opposes Candidate Seong-joo Cho, who promises to elect a proportional representative as a 100% non-competitive strategic list, saying, “I am against it because it is to wield the right of nomination at will. pointed out
In response, Candidate Jo Seong-joo said, “The statute of limitations has already expired that party members’ pride in determining the turn of proportional representatives by voting by party members is over. problem,” he said. He continued, “Isn’t the current method of selecting proportional representatives the seniority system of factions? “It looks like the party members are going straight, but it’s actually disguised,” he said.
Candidate Jo Seong-ju again attacked the introduction of proportional representation by region, which was advocated by Candidate Yun-ki Kim. Candidate Yoon-gi Kim is of the view that the country should be divided into six to eight districts, giving local politicians the opportunity to become proportional representatives of the National Assembly.
Candidate Jo Seong-ju said, “The idea is to select the proportional list by region, and if proportional representatives are elected in that way, it will be much easier to predict which opinion group (proportional representative) will take each number of seats. Isn’t there a risk of corruption by borrowing a format and stably sharing proportional representation?” he asked.
Candidate Kim Yoon-gi said, “Each system has its pros and cons, and the party’s strategy is necessary in a specific situation. As the existing proportional representation election system is based on famous people and recruiting from outside, the activities of local politicians are meaningless.
1Lee Jung-mi, former leader of the Justice Party·Kim Yoon-gi also raises the theory of responsibility
A 10-year evaluation committee belonging to the Justice Party Emergency Response Committee defined the failure of the 1st Justice Party. Some candidates even raised the theory of responsibility for the candidates who served in the leadership of the 1st Justice Party.
Candidate Yoon-ki Kim said about Lee Jung-mi, who is considered the representative leadership of the first Justice Party, “there are criticisms that it is at the heart of the party’s crisis and is at the center of responsibility. missed,” he said. It is pointed out that while candidate Lee Jung-mi was her party leader, she could not clearly draw a line with the Democratic Party, and her identity as the Justice Party became unclear.
In response, Candidate Lee Jung-mi said, “After the change of government in 2017, I think that a coalition politics that reverses the impeachment coalition into a reform and legislative coalition was necessary. There is,” he retorted.
Candidate Lee Dong-young said, “I have assumed the power and responsibility of the party mainly with the mainstream faction within the party, but Lee Jung-mi has served as the party leader and a member of the National Assembly, but has not made an official position on the evaluation for the past 10 years.” Critical comments on the union were presented.
Candidate Lee Jeong-mi said, “I know there are criticisms that the party’s benefits are concentrated on a specific faction. It is necessary and will strive for a full-scale innovation in the role of political parties.” “People with me will be the first to serve in the strategic constituencies,” he added.
Candidate Kim Yoon-gi, who defined the failure of the first-term leadership of Shim Sang-jung and Lee Jeong-mi, was also criticized for not being free from responsibility for the party’s crisis.
Candidate Lee Dong-young pointed out that “the first term was stipulated in the candidacy declaration as a failure, but candidate Kim Yoon-gi also played the role of deputy leader in Kim Jong-cheol’s leadership.”
Candidate Kim Yoon-gi said, “In the process of inauguration of the Kim Jong-cheol leadership, the issue of arranging relations with the Democratic Party was greatly emphasized, but in fact, such things did not work out well. We are sorry that the parts we suggested were not achieved,” he said.
Candidate Jeong Ho-jin also said, “I served as the party’s deputy leader and then acted as the party representative, but resigned after two days, criticized for being irresponsible.” did. It is questionable whether reflection was sufficient.”
Candidate Yoongi Kim said, “There are many ways to take responsibility. If you think about how the leadership of the party is formed, I thought it would not be appropriate to continue to hold the position.”
Policy Commitment Controversy
The candidate at the center of the controversy over policy promises was Candidate Seong-Ju Cho, who criticized the rapid increase in the minimum wage during the Moon Jae-in administration, citing negative regulations and the job-level wage system.
Candidate Kim Yoon-gi criticized Candidate Seong-joo Cho, saying, “In writing, we have to fight the Democratic Party, but the core argument and the way it is presented itself is different from that of the progressive party.” He said, “I said that the problem was that the Justice Party supported the sharp increase in the minimum wage, but this is a story that is difficult to come from a progressive party. The method seems similar to the Democratic Party or the power of the people,” he pointed out.
Candidate Jo Sung-joo asked, “Is it a fixed thing to be a progressive party?” “I think the minimum wage should continue to rise in the future, but the Moon Jae-in administration unconditionally raising the minimum wage without knowing the details of the scope of inclusion and vacation pay points out that it made a very big mistake as a policy,” he said. did,” he retorted. As for the introduction of negative deregulation, he said, “I’m not talking about deregulation, I’m trying to change the way we do it.”
Then, candidate Kim Yoon-gi said, “The minimum wage is a matter of basic rights and human rights, but it is approaching with an overly economical logic. “It is misleading to criticize a wage increase.”
Candidate Jung-mi Lee, who is called the ‘first-class candidate’, was criticized for not having a new vision or a responsible innovation plan.
Candidate Jo Seong-joo said, “I think I’m discussing with the 2017 party leader Lee Jung-mi. I don’t know what questions to ask about the new vision.” He continued, “In 2017, right after the candlelight vigil took place, not only progressive politics, but also civil society movements, the media, and both parties are shaking. Don’t do what you did in 2017. We need a new vision.”
Candidate Yoon-gi Kim also said, “I heard that you have received many benefits from the party, such as party leaders and members of the National Assembly.
party vote and 6411bus no.…Negative Marketing Controversy
Candidate Ho-jin Jeong took issue with Candidate Jo Sung-joo’s declaration of candidacy, which said, ‘Now is the time to get off the bus 6411.’ Candidate Ho-jin Jeong said, “It is regrettable that the symbol of the late Rep. Hoe-chan Roh is used as a material for negative marketing strategies. This kind of rhetoric is not new,” he said.
Candidate Jo Seong-ju explained, “I did not intend to do negative marketing, but rather to think deeply about the direction that Rep. Hoe-chan Roh was aiming for. “Isn’t that the biggest negative marketing campaign called a general vote for the party members?” he asked.
Candidate Ho-jin Jeong said, “It is not correct to directly relate my running for party leader to the general voting of the party members. Then he retorted, saying, “Is it because he was reincarnated to run for party leader?”
Candidate Jo Seong-joo again counterattacked, saying, “They are asking Kim Yoon-gi for political responsibility and me doing negative marketing, but I wonder how he will take his political responsibility for the failure of the general party vote.”
Candidate Ho-jin Jeong said, “I came to the party representative election to take political responsibility.”
Candidate Jo Seong-joo said, “You said that the general voting of the party members and running for party leader are separate, but now you are saying something completely different.” Getting off the 6411 bus is negative marketing.”
Candidate Ho-jin Jeong criticized Candidate Seong-joo Cho’s remarks, saying that the party member vote was ‘not politics or democracy’ and demanded its withdrawal.
In response, Candidate Jo Seong-ju said, “I said that I oppose the issue of the deprivation of membership for proportional members as a form of political resolution, bypassing the normal disciplinary process, and that such a political act is neither political nor democratic. “Politics and democracy are about creating and arguing within the boundaries of the line and discussion that we must defend, and it is difficult to say that it is unconditionally justified because it has the requirements,” he said.
Candidate Ho-jin Jeong then said, “I said I was going to break the taboo of progress, but Candidate Jo Seong-ju seems to think that proportional representative lawmaker has a sanctuary.”