PSPD in English Civil-Political 2010-03-01   2526

Election, Party Not for Everyone


 



According to Article 93 of the Official Election Law, any criticism and support through any writings are prohibited for 180 days before an election. Then, how can the citizens know who they should vote for if they are not given any chance to verify the candidates’ qualification through debates on the candidates.

It is said that the grounds for that regulation is for preventing the elections from any intervention of wealth power, violation, authority, school ties, regional ties, blood ties. However, the wealth power can be prevented by the election campaign fund regulation laws, the authority, by the government officials’ promised neutrality, and violation, by the Criminal Act. If freedom of criticism on the candidates is prohibited, it is likely to be more advantageous for those candidates who have more school and regional ties, and money. For example, it goes same that if advertising is prohibited, it is advantageous for the corporations who are already dominated in the market. Article 93 is not necessary to prevent rigged elections, and it seems that it rather promotes the unfairness. Also, it is the violation of the Constitution since it hinders the communication between candidates and people. 

Especially, the Court and the National Election Commission (NEC) have the Article 93 applied to internet bulletin boards, blogs, social networking services (ex; Twitter), and this can be the violation of the Constitution.

Prohibiting publicity methods like posters, placards, and publications have at least something to do with protecting the election from wealth power because those methods requires lots of money as the candidates promote themselves with those methods. In contrast with this, the Internet websites, for example, promoting on Twitter or commenting, are not something that can affect the voting intentions by money. It is possible that the candidates hire people with money to increase their supporting rate by writing favorable comments and writings for them, but as a matter of fact, its effect is very insignificant because it is less likely that the hired people can move the majority of Internet users. Thus, the fact that Article 93 applies to the Internet regulation for the election has nothing to do with the prevention of money power into the election, and also there already is a regulation for election campaign funds.

The NEC said that they would not unconditionally regulate supporting or opposing writings on the Internet, but would judge if those have significant effect on the election campaign, and then figure out what to do. However, the Commentary on the Election Campaign (Article 58) is too broad, and it will be difficult to see it as a restrictive interpretation.

Second, Article 59, Section 3 of the Law allows the election candidates to do electioneering anytime on the Internet. It is illegal for the candidates to criticize other candidates on and off-line, but not for politicians, which makes the election their own “party.” Allowing the candidates to promote themselves when forbidding them not to criticize other candidates hinders the election to be fairer.

Also, if one sees the Internet, they might find it strange that only supporting writings of the candidates are found on the Internet. The Internet, having known as the revolution of communication, is now being devastated due to such harsh regulations. In South Korea, the Internet users must identify themselves for the Internet real name system. If the majority of netizens dislike a writing, the writing is erased.

The Korean netizens and voters won’t be defeated easily. However, the difference between a developed country and a developing country is whether they are hovering inside or outside of “the party.” In addition to the McCarthyism that is now happening in Korea (the government pressures and stops funding those who tend to be opposed to them) the government regulates the Internet so harshly under the good name of fair election. Then, how can democracy and culture blossom out?


Park Kyung-sin
Head of the Public Law Center at People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy
Law Professor at Korea University

* This is a contribution to Hankyoreh on March 1.

정부지원금 0%, 회원의 회비로 운영됩니다

참여연대 후원/회원가입


참여연대 NOW

실시간 활동 SNS

텔레그램 채널에 가장 빠르게 게시되고,

더 많은 채널로 소통합니다. 지금 팔로우하세요!