A rift between factions loyal to President Lee Jae-myung and to former party leader Jung Chung-rae has resurfaced within the Democratic Party of Korea, this time over allegations that members of the Shincheonji religious group joined the party en masse in an organized effort. With the party's approval ratings struggling to rebound, the factional conflict inside the leadership has again put party leader Kim Min-seok's command to the test. Hardliners in the broader pro-government camp, including the Jung faction, are also pressing the leadership to act on impeaching Supreme Court Chief Justice Jo Hee-de, adding to Kim's political burden.
According to political sources on the 24th, Lee Sung-yoon, a supreme council member aligned with Jung, and Park Sun-won, a supreme council member aligned with Lee Jae-myung, clashed head-on at the party's supreme council meeting the previous day over whether to disclose the findings of an investigation into the alleged group enrollment of Shincheonji members. "The findings of the investigation into suspected Shincheonji involvement must be disclosed to the public and to party members exactly as they are," Lee said. "If the allegations are true, those responsible must be held accountable, and if there is no basis for them, commensurate and severe responsibility must likewise be assigned."
Park, who has led the task force on party membership review and conducted the investigation, pushed back in public. Immediately after Lee spoke, Park shot back, "Fine, disclose all of it," and then raised his voice, saying, "I will announce it publicly at the press briefing room. As head of the task force, I will take responsibility and do it." Kim appeared taken aback by the sudden remarks, and other leadership figures moved to restrain Park. Asked later by reporters whether he had secured evidence of organized enrollment by Shincheonji members, Park said he had, but declined to elaborate on whether there had been interference in the party's internal primary.
The conflict traces back to allegations of a "secret three-way alliance" raised by Kim during the party convention on Aug. 17. At the time, Kim alleged a "secret three-way alliance of anti-Lee forces, divisionists and Shincheonji," which was widely read as aimed at the camp of Jung Chung-rae, then his rival for the party leadership. After taking office, Kim launched a party-level investigation, which found circumstantial evidence that Shincheonji members had joined as a group. The Jung faction argues that evidence of group enrollment alone does not prove the allegations, and that the party must also determine whether there was organized interference in the primary and whether any faction was involved. In particular, they argue that because Kim effectively directed the allegations at the Jung faction, he must bear political responsibility if no basis is found.
The Jung faction has raised the pressure, demanding full disclosure of the findings. "They can simply disclose what was investigated exactly as it is," Jung wrote on Facebook. "If there is something, act accordingly; if there is nothing, act accordingly." Choi Min-hee, another supreme council member, said, "The supreme council never decided not to disclose the findings," and called for the release of the sources of the relevant materials, the timing of the enrollments and any evidence supporting the "secret three-way alliance" allegations.
For Kim, the question of whether to release the findings leaves him caught between two unattractive options. Even with circumstantial evidence that Shincheonji members joined as a group, failure to prove organized interference in the primary or ties to a particular faction could intensify disputes over the basis for the allegations he originally raised. Conversely, even if evidence of actual interference inside the party emerges, disclosing it could further inflame the factional conflict.
Within the party, concerns are growing about Kim's grip on the organization as a series of controversies has now been followed by open conflict inside the leadership. The party had already been shaken by friction over the appointment of Kim Ji-yong as head of the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency and by the controversy over Gyeonggi Province Governor Choo Mi-ae's remark about fire services being a "straw" on provincial finances, and now supreme council members have clashed in public. Some note that with the party's approval ratings stagnant, a prolonged factional fight could also weigh on the leadership's ability to support the government's policy agenda.
As fatigue over the drawn-out factional conflict grows inside the party, some are calling for Kim to step in personally to contain the situation. "Where is the time for factional fighting right now? The party leader needs to sort this out quickly," one lawmaker aligned with Lee Jae-myung said. Another Democratic Party lawmaker also stressed the leadership's role, saying, "There is much to move forward on, so the internal dispute needs to be settled quickly."
The party leadership has agreed to further discuss whether to release the findings of the Shincheonji investigation, but it remains unclear whether the conflict can be resolved soon. "Opinion had initially been converging on keeping it closed, but the supreme council will make the final decision taking into account public opinion and the repercussions within the party," chief spokesperson Park Sung-joon said.
Differences over policy direction are also surfacing within the party over the push to impeach Chief Justice Jo. Jung recently urged the leadership to act, saying, "Now is the right time to impeach Jo Hee-de," and adding, "If you keep watching public opinion out of fear of fallout and backlash, it is easy to miss the moment." Lee Sung-yoon likewise called for a swift push the previous day, saying impeachment "can no longer be delayed."
Kim, by contrast, has said he will review all options including impeachment, while remaining cautious about the specific timing and method. That is seen as reflecting both uncertainty over whether the Constitutional Court would uphold an impeachment and concern that forcing the issue could trigger a public backlash.