"A party convention is supposed to be a fierce fight. You just patch things up once it's over."
That was how one senior lawmaker of the Democratic Party responded to concerns that clashes among candidates during the convention could leave lasting scars after the vote. Recalling events from 11 years ago, the lawmaker argued that the end of a contest can open the way to unity. But a message of unity has not guaranteed that rifts will close. After Moon Jae-in was elected party leader at the 2015 convention, outreach toward unity continued, yet it ultimately ended with lawmaker Ahn Cheol-soo leaving the party and a split.
Back then, Moon appointed figures from the non-Moon and Honam factions to key party posts after taking office and formed policy groups with faction bosses. After a by-election defeat, he even proposed the "Moon-Ahn-Park alliance" to lead the party alongside Ahn Cheol-soo and Park Won-soon. It was not that a message of unity was absent. What the non-mainstream wanted, however, was not a handful of party posts but real authority to take part in candidate nominations and major decisions. As inclusion failed to translate into shared power, the accumulated distrust eventually spread into a party split.
This convention was fierce as well. Party leader Kim Min-seok and candidate Jeong Cheong-rae traded sharp blows, and the emotional clashes between their supporters intensified. Once the vote was over, however, the mood shifted. Kim said he would "run together" with candidates Jeong and Song Young-gil, and President Lee Jae-myung plans to summon the three candidates to stress the idea of "one team." Judging by the message of unity alone, the start is not bad.
Yet a subtle gap in tone was detected from the very first Supreme Council meeting. Kim presented his own line as the party's direction, saying that "a course of livelihood, pragmatism and expansion won overwhelming support." By contrast, Choi Min-hee, the senior Supreme Council member from the pro-Jeong Cheong-rae faction, assessed the convention result as "an exquisite outcome in which public sentiment kept the party base in check." When Kim emphasized the principle of closed-door meetings, Choi went so far as to demand that even the lawmakers' general meeting be made public. Faint tension is already running through a leadership that speaks of unity.
The conflict itself is not the problem. It is natural for different voices to exist within the leadership. What matters is how the demands expressed at the convention are reflected in the actual running of the party. If unity is wrapped up with the distribution of a few posts, the failure of 11 years ago could repeat itself.
What the Democratic Party needs is not a declaration that it will "work together." It is a structure in which different forces take part in the actual decision-making process and share responsibility. To show that rivals can move forward together even after a bitter fight, the party must this time prove its unity through authority and systems, not words.
