Daejeon-Chungnam Administrative Merger: Why a Referendum is Crucial for Citizen Approval?

Democratic Party Accused of Dodging Responsibility and Launching Strategic Attacks vs. People Power Party’s Integration Plan Criticized for Lacking Financial Backing and Authority, Citizens’ Consent Needed First

On February 10, Lee Eun-kwon, chairman of the People Power Party’s Daejeon chapter, along with Daejeon City Council Speaker Cho Won-hwi and Chungnam Provincial Assembly Speaker Hong Seong-hyun, held a press conference at the Daejeon City Council. They argued that the special law on Daejeon-Chungnam administrative integration, pushed by the Democratic Party, is being rushed through and called for a public referendum. / Photo by Jung Ye-jun

[The Fact | Daejeon = Seon Chi-young, Jung Ye-jun] The controversy over a public referendum on the administrative integration of Daejeon and Chungnam has escalated into a full-blown political confrontation. As the dispute between the ruling and opposition parties intensifies, discussions about regional administrative integration are devolving into a debate over political accountability.

The Democratic Party fired the opening salvo by criticizing the People Power Party’s call for a public referendum as strategic obstruction. The People Power Party hit back hard, questioning both the content and overall process of the integration bill, declaring that a hasty integration without citizen approval is reckless.

On February 10, Democratic Party city council members Kim Min-sook (proportional representation) and Bang Jin-young (Yuseong 2) held a press conference at the Daejeon City Council. They condemned the resolution urging a public referendum on the Daejeon-Chungnam administrative integration as a political attack disguised as the will of the citizens, labeling it irresponsible behavior that fuels unnecessary conflict.

They specifically pointed out that last year, the Daejeon City Council, led by the People Power Party, passed a motion to gather opinions on the integration of Daejeon and Chungcheongnam-do administrative districts. They argued that those who agreed and voted in favor at that time are now contradicting themselves by demanding a public referendum.

They maintained that the current bill follows normal legislative procedures to support existing integration discussions, asserting that characterizing the National Assembly’s deliberation process as a change of direction is a fallacy that undermines the legislative process.

The Democratic Party also questioned the legal effectiveness of a public referendum. They noted that Daejeon Mayor Lee Jang-woo rejected a referendum request from a civic group, stating that ‘administrative integration is a national matter and not subject to a vote.’ They criticized the push for a resolution lacking legal force and time as baseless obstruction, arguing that city council members from the same party must be aware of this fact.

In response, the People Power Party’s Daejeon and Chungnam chapters, along with the Daejeon and Chungnam city and provincial council speakers, held a joint press conference the same day. They countered that the ongoing Daejeon-Chungnam administrative integration is being rushed, both in content and procedure, falling far short of citizens’ expectations.

The People Power Party first directly challenged the financial structure of the integration bill.

Lee Eun-kwon, chairman of the People Power Party’s Daejeon chapter, remarked that while substantial financial support seems to be promised, it is merely ’empty financial support’ at a declarative level without legal binding. He warned that an integration lacking clear national financial responsibility would ultimately increase the local burden.

He also claimed that compared to discussions on the Gwangju-Jeonnam integration, the current proposal fails to ensure equity in terms of national financial obligations and the level of authority transfer.

The effectiveness of authority transfer emerged as another key issue. The People Power Party criticized the authority transfer, bound by the caveat of consultation with the central government, as practically difficult to implement. They noted the absence of concrete execution mechanisms for key issues like agency relocation, arguing that despite the name ‘integration,’ it lacks substantial change.

The People Power Party also warned about the risks of the legislative approach by citing other special autonomous regions. They pointed to Gangwon Special Self-Governing Province as an example, which has been criticized for achieving only nominal autonomy without actual authority transfer after the law’s passage. They argued that Daejeon and Chungnam could repeat the same failure with a ‘pass first, supplement later’ approach.

They highlighted the legitimacy of the implementation process as a significant concern. The People Power Party stated that administrative integration is a critical issue that changes not only administrative districts but also the structure of citizens’ lives. However, they argued that there has been insufficient public discourse, explanation, and persuasion. They maintained that rushing without substantial consent processes, like a public referendum, lacks legitimacy.

Regarding the legislative public hearing held the previous day, the People Power Party remarked that even the chair of the National Assembly’s Administrative Safety Committee from the ruling party publicly criticized the central government’s lack of will for decentralization and the facade of the integration law. They stated that the public hearing’s devolution into political conflict rather than policy verification exposes the limitations of the integration push.

They emphasized the need for responsible discussions based on sustainable financial support and bold authority transfer, rather than a rushed integration aligned with political schedules.

Finally, the People Power Party asserted that the ultimate decision must rest with the citizens, demanding that the Daejeon city government and city council officially request the Ministry of the Interior and Safety to conduct a public referendum. They argued that integration without citizen approval is not reform but coercion, and a rush lacking legitimacy is not integration but recklessness.

tfcc2024@tf.co.kr