Civic groups in South Korea have criticized the swift legislative process for three special laws aimed at administrative integration, claiming a lack of adequate public consultation and warning of potential negative impacts on local governance.
On December 12, the National Assembly's Administrative Safety Committee approved three special laws intended for administrative integration in regions including Chungcheongnam-do and Daejeon, Jeollanam-do and Gwangju, and Daegu and Gyeongsangbuk-do. In response, 18 civic organizations, including the Participation Solidarity, expressed their concern over what they termed a rushed process, emphasizing that these laws were pushed through without sufficient public dialogue or consensus. They condemned the fast-tracked schedule, which aligns with local election timelines, stressing the importance of public input on legislative matters that significantly affect the lives of citizens.
The coalition of civic organizations criticized that the lack of a deliberate discussion process erodes the democratic nature of local governance. They questioned the rationale behind the administrative integration, asking, "For whom is this integration being undertaken?" They further warned that proceeding with these laws without accompanying reforms to the local electoral system could worsen the conditions for local autonomy. Their statement implied that the push for integration, under the guise of overcoming the dominance of the metropolitan area and addressing the crisis of local extinction, could be more about securing political advantages from the resulting restructured electoral boundaries.
In a parallel move, the Economic Justice Action Network (ê²½ì‹¤ë ¨) also issued a statement urging the withdrawal of the administrative integration special laws. They highlighted serious issues with the methods being proposed by the ruling party, who promote these laws under the pretext of decentralization. Their concerns included clauses that diverge from standard governmental administrative principles, suggesting that such provisions enable disproportionate financial allocations and authority transfer to specific regions. They warned that relying on central government compensation schemes undermines long-term sustainability and could incite conflict among regions excluded from these benefits, ultimately endangering balanced national development.
