Kim Min-seok, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, held back-to-back meetings with opposition party leaders on the 24th, one week after taking office, launching what he calls "addition politics." He proposed bipartisan discussions with the People Power Party on livelihood issues such as housing, while stressing unconditional solidarity with the broader progressive camp, including the Rebuilding Korea Party, as he moved to broaden his party's reach. Analysts say Kim's plan to reshape the party into an "expansion-oriented party" spanning progressives, moderates and conservatives ahead of the 2028 general election now faces a test of whether it can translate into political results.
Kim visited the People Power Party leader's office at the National Assembly that day to pay a courtesy call on party leader Chang Dong-hyeok, telling him, "If there are two people who must not let go of the line of dialogue until the very end as long as politics continues, I think they are you and me," and proposed that the two leaders meet regularly. Kim wore a tie combining the blue and red that symbolize the Democratic Party and the People Power Party, signaling his willingness to talk with the opposition. Chang urged Kim to "draw on your experience running state affairs as prime minister and firmly support the president's governance for the sake of the struggling economy, while joining forces with the opposition when the National Assembly needs to check the executive branch." It was the first one-on-one meeting between the leaders of the ruling and opposition parties in about two years, since a September 2024 meeting between then-Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung and People Power Party leader Han Dong-hoon.
The two leaders raised livelihood issues such as property tax reform and housing supply, and agreed that bipartisan discussions should take place. The point was that, because these are core issues directly tied to people's lives, the ruling and opposition parties should seek solutions regardless of political advantage. Chang welcomed the previous day's signal at a high-level party-government council to ease the tax burden on owners of a single home they do not live in, saying, "If many side effects are expected, I hope you will also show the courage to boldly reverse the policy direction." Kim responded, "On housing issues at least, I will consider how to build a framework for bipartisan discussion, like foreign policy." A debate on housing policy involving both the ruling and opposition parties was also mentioned.
Still, the two showed clear differences over matters such as the Supreme Court chief justice's authority to nominate justices and the government's use of a future-response fund. Chang emphasized judicial independence by citing a case during the Roh Moo-hyun administration in which then-Chief Justice Choi Jong-young clashed with the presidential office over a Supreme Court justice nominee, but former President Roh Moo-hyun accepted the nomination. This was an indirect criticism of the ruling party, which has continued its offensive over a controversy involving Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae's "written nomination" of justices. Chang also said of the 100-trillion-won future-response fund that it "could raise the misunderstanding that it is an approval-rating-response fund or an election-response fund," arguing that half of any excess tax revenue should be used for the middle class and young people.
Kim's repeated appeals to the People Power Party for a "bridge of dialogue" are seen as a departure from the previous leadership. Unlike former leader Jung Chung-rae, who had avoided meetings and even refused to shake hands with Chang, Kim took his first step toward ruling-opposition cooperation by clasping hands with the leader of the main opposition party just one week after taking office on the 17th of this month. It is read as an attempt to broaden the party's reach by emphasizing "B" for Broad among the "CABS" principles he presented as the party's operating direction when he was elected leader. His plan is to build an unbroken bridge of dialogue with the People Power Party, the main opposition party, while widening a bridge of solidarity with progressive and reform parties.
In fact, before paying a courtesy call on Rebuilding Korea Party leader Shin Jang-sik that day, Kim set up a task force under his direct control, the "Grand Unification Promotion Group," and appointed Rep. Park Beom-kye as its head. Under the task force, he established a progressive-solidarity subcommittee, a Rebuilding Korea Party solidarity subcommittee and a recruitment-expansion subcommittee. This is interpreted as a move that considers not only cooperation and solidarity with the broader progressive parties, including the Rebuilding Korea Party, but even a merger. Meeting with Shin, Kim stressed, "Whether the two parties' relationship ultimately leads to a merger forming a single party, or to solidarity while remaining separate parties, should be decided from a 'win-win' perspective."
The Rebuilding Korea Party's position is that rebuilding trust should come first, ahead of any integration talks. The two parties discussed a merger ahead of the June 3 local elections, but the effort collapsed amid internal opposition within the Democratic Party. Within the Rebuilding Korea Party, there is also discontent that the Democratic Party unilaterally announced solidarity bodies such as the Grand Unification Promotion Group along with the officials in charge. Shin urged, "We must first heal the wounds between the two parties that have not yet closed, and revive the principles and standards of solidarity."
Internally, Kim is accelerating an organizational overhaul. Since taking office, he has launched or announced plans to set up more than a dozen bodies, including an innovation task force at the Democratic Research Institute, a task force to promote Democratic Party TV, a "Friday-night politics" grassroots livelihood group and a task force to improve party convention rules. Some within the party welcome this as a swift shift toward a system to prepare for the 2028 general election, while others voice concern about a "surplus of task forces." The concern is that if each task force's role and results are not clear, the effort could come across as reform for show.
