Legitimacy fight engulfs Lee’s ruling party

Lee Hyun-sang

The author is a columnist at the JoongAng Ilbo. 

The Democratic Party (DP) has become embroiled in a debate over political legitimacy and ideological inheritance. The controversy began with former party leader Jung Chung-rae, who is seeking another term as party chair. Announcing his resignation to enter the race, Jung highlighted his roots in Nosamo, the grassroots organization that supported former President Roh Moo-hyun. By contrasting himself with rivals such as Prime Minister Kim Min-seok and former party leader Song Young-gil, he implied that he alone represented the party's authentic lineage.

Prominent progovernment commentators soon reinforced the argument. Broadcaster Kim Eo-jun claimed that President Lee Jae Myung's declining approval ratings reflected weakening support among the DP's core supporters. Writer Yoo Si-min went further, arguing that those who backed Lee had wanted to "widen the tent," only to see him attempt to "knock it down and rebuild it" without first securing the support of his political base. The remark was a direct criticism of Lee's move toward the political center, widely described as the "New Lee Jae Myung" strategy. It also suggested that the president lacked the authority to redefine either the DP or the broader progressive movement.

The debate has since broadened. Some party members have revived Lee's past involvement with a political camp that opposed Roh loyalists during Lee's years outside the party mainstream. Others have pointed to Prime Minister Kim's earlier participation in Chung Mong-joon's presidential campaign. Lee himself responded with an enigmatic post on X: "A Buddha sees a Buddha, while a pig sees a pig." The political repercussions are likely to continue.

Arguments over political legitimacy place greater value on lineage than achievement. In monarchies, legitimacy was determined by bloodline. In political parties, it is measured by fidelity to ideology and factional tradition. Such thinking easily becomes exclusive and intolerant, sometimes even challenging the legitimacy of those already wielding power.

A revealing historical parallel is the Rites Controversy during the Joseon Dynasty (1392–1910). The first dispute erupted in 1659 after the death of King Hyojong (r. 1649-59), when the political factions known as the Seoin, or Western Faction, and the Namin, or Southern Faction, clashed over how long Queen Dowager Jaui should observe mourning. Beneath what appeared to be a dispute over Confucian ritual lay a more fundamental political question: Because Hyojong had inherited the throne as a second son rather than the eldest, could his royal legitimacy be considered complete?

The leading scholar-official Song Si-yeol argued that although Hyojong occupied the throne, his legitimacy remained incomplete because he did not belong to the primary line of succession. His reasoning reflected a broader Confucian belief that a ruler's authority ultimately depended on recognition by the scholar-official class as much as on formal succession.

Jung, Kim Eo-jun and Yoo all insist they want the Lee Jae Myung administration to succeed. Yet beneath their remarks lies a similar assumption: that the president's legitimacy depends on approval from those who regard themselves as guardians of the DP's authentic identity. Jung's remark that "governments are temporary, but the people are eternal" succinctly captures that sentiment.

It is striking that a concept rooted in hereditary monarchy has resurfaced within the ruling party of a modern democracy. Behind it lies what can only be described as the DP's enduring siege mentality. Forged during decades of resistance to authoritarian governments, that collective identity has long been one of the party's greatest political assets. Yet even after securing both the presidency and an overwhelming majority in the National Assembly, the party continues to see itself as an underdog surrounded by hostile forces.

Such a mindset inevitably encourages ideological purity. Those who express even slightly different views are quickly regarded as adversaries, while pressure grows to draw increasingly rigid lines between allies and enemies. This inward-looking political culture is a product of that siege mentality. It is, in many respects, a form of political immaturity.

Song Si-yeol's argument prevailed during the first Rites Controversy, but the political tide turned 15 years later during the second dispute, which followed the death of Queen Inseon, Hyojong's widow. By then, King Hyeonjong (r. 1659-74) had consolidated royal authority and reacted angrily to attempts to question his father's legitimacy. The Seoin faction lost power and scholar-official were sent into exile. The episode demonstrated that abstract claims of legitimacy could not prevail over political reality.

The legitimacy of a modern political party does not come from inherited factional pedigrees or ideological bloodlines. It is earned through the capacity to embrace the spirit of the times and respond to changing public opinion. That was the warning voters delivered to the DP in the June 3 local elections. Like the Joseon scholars who became consumed by disputes over mourning rites while losing sight of larger historical change, a governing party preoccupied with arguments over political lineage is not merely disappointing but dangerous. The tide of public opinion has little regard for political pedigrees.