DLP-KCTU update
Congratulations for getting past that acronym soup of a title. I just can’t think of ways of making the titles of posts about the Korean labour movement sound witty or interesting…
Anyway, thought I should update briefly on what has happened in the second round of elections for the leadership of the Democratic Labour Party since I covered this in quite a bit of detail before. It seems that the winner of the run-off election for party chair was Mun Sŏng-hyŏn, a member of the left-nationalist faction within the DLP. This means that that faction, rather than the social democrats, have taken the top three positions within the organisation.
The Hankyoreh had quite a good editorial on the outcome of the election, noting sensibly:
The DLP’s platform is an issue on which the success of progressive politics depends. It must not focus entirely on nationalist issues because the “independence faction” has seized power, because promoting the transformation of labor into a political force is one of its major goals. That is why it needs to get to work on behalf of the interests of laborers and particularly irregular workers.
Also from the Hankyoreh’s English editorials section is this piece on the ongoing crisis in the leadership of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (민주노총). Things don’t look good at the moment…
I’ve understood as well that the Mun the elect would be of the chaju fraction, but this message at Jinbonuri places him closer to the labor movement than the unificationists.
Another interesting piece from the same place, original source unknown. Thought first it was about the experiences of police responsible of Northern refugees, but it turns into a strong rebuke of Yi Yong-dae, the guy we progressives love to detest…
Comment by Antti — February 17, 2006 @ 8:11 am
Thanks for the interesting links Antti. It seems as though Hankyoreh may be guilty of oversimplifying things a bit in their editorial, or maybe they actually know as little about the internal politics of the Korean left as I do. Perhaps, though, as Noja suggested before, he is being careful to present his ‘labour movement credentials’ and say all the things that he knows the party members will want to hear.
By the way, a question: would I be correct in thinking that ‘chajup’a’ is what the ‘chusap’a’ prefer to call themselves? Or is there some other historical distinction that I’m not getting.
Comment by kotaji — February 17, 2006 @ 11:11 am