The Constitutional Court’s decision on Dec. 19 to disband the small leftist Unified Progressive Party upended Korean politics. By an 8-1 majority, the justices declared the party a threat to national security because of its sympathetic stance toward North Korea. The strongly worded judgment also forced the party to relinquish its five seats in the National Assembly and all of its assets and property. This marks the first time since 1958 that a political party has been forced to disband.

As expected, conservatives welcomed the decision, arguing that it was necessary to protect the nation from North Korean infiltration. Progressives argued that the decision took the country back to the dark years of dictatorship when anti-government forces were routinely rounded up and jailed. A poll taken shortly after the decision showed that 60 percent of the public agreed with the ruling, 28 percent were against it, and the rest undecided.

As with all controversial decisions, the fullness of time will tell whether the Constitutional Court was right or not. The more important question at the moment is why the public agrees with the decision by a two-to-one margin and what this means for the future of progressive parties in Korea.

The UPP traces its roots to the Democratic Labor Party ― originally called “Citizens’ Victory 21.” Formed only nine years after democratization, it was the first openly left-wing party in Korea. It ran Kwon Young-ghil as a presidential candidate in the 1997, 2002, and 2007 elections. It also achieved victories in parliamentary and local elections.

By the late 2000s, internal disputes over North Korea caused a split in the party. In 2011, the party merged with other progressive groups and, through a strategic alliance with the main opposition party, managed to win 13 National Assembly seats out a total of 300 in the 2012 elections. Internal disputes, however, caused the party to split later in 2012. In 2013 Lee Seok-ki, a UPP member of the National Assembly was arrested and found guilty of plotting a pro-North Korean rebellion. This shocked the nation and greatly weakened the party.

This brief look at the history of the UPP shows that the sympathetic, if not out rightly pro-North Korean stance became more dominant as time went on. In turn, this alienated the public and turned the party into an isolated activist-based subculture.

Shortly before the presidential election in 2012, I remember looking out the window of a taxi and seeing a UPP banner saying “Why Not Consider the Koryo Federation?” Out of curiosity, I asked the driver what the banner meant and he replied that it was a North Korean plot to take over the country and that the party was a bunch of communists. This is how much of the public views the UPP and why 60 percent agreed with the Constitutional Court’s decision.

During the Kim Dae-jung administration (1998-2003), the public was willing to consider engagement with North Korea, which was known as the “Sunshine Policy,” because there is an inherent desire among the public to reduce tensions. The premise of the policy was that reaching out to the North would reduce tension and help bring it into the community of nations. As time passed, it became clear that the North was not willing to reduce tensions, and this caused the public to lose patience with the “Sunshine Policy.” In this context, it was only natural for the public to become suspicious of the UPP’s pro-North Korea stance.

All democracies have progressive and conservative political groups. In general, progressives advocate change, whereas conservatives prefer the status quo. Though specific to local conditions, progressives generally favor government action in dealing with social and economic problems, whereas conservatives favor a more laissez faire approach. On foreign policy matters, progressives tend to be more conciliatory, whereas conservatives tend to assert the national interest more stridently. In a healthy democracy power moves back and forth between the two ideologies and never too far to one extreme.

This applies to Korea, too, and explains why it needs healthy progressive politics. To regain their health, progressive groups must assure a suspicious public that they are not traitors and that they have the best interest of the nation at heart. Thus breaking away from a sympathetic stance toward North Korea that took root in the 1980s. Likewise, it means breaking away from issue-based street protests that alienate the public as they become violent. Instead, progressive groups need to focus on implementing their policies through honest and active participation in the political process.

By Robert J. Fouser

Robert J. Fouser, a former associate professor of Korean language education at Seoul National University, writes on Korea from Ann Arbor, Michigan. ― Ed.