On January 11, 2026, the Democratic Party of Korea found itself at a pivotal crossroads, holding elections for new internal representatives and executive committee members in the wake of Kim Byung-ki’s resignation as floor leader. The results of these elections—held amid swirling political intrigue and an approaching local election—are expected to shape the party’s direction in the coming months, with implications that could reverberate well beyond the party’s own ranks.
The contest to replace Kim Byung-ki as floor leader drew four seasoned lawmakers: Han Byung-do, Jin Seong-joon, Park Jeong, and Baek Hye-ryeon. According to JTBC, all four candidates are regarded as relatively neutral within the party’s often factionalized landscape, a fact that many observers found refreshing given the recent turbulence the party has experienced. While each candidate brought their own strengths and perspectives, they shared a common call for accountability regarding Kim’s departure, with all four emphasizing the need for the individual at the center of the controversy to resolve the matter themselves.
The election process itself was a study in balancing tradition with innovation. The Democratic Party employed a hybrid voting system that combined 80% of the votes from sitting lawmakers with 20% from rights-holding party members, as reported by Newsis. The rights holders’ vote was conducted online, closing at 4 PM on January 11, while the lawmakers cast their ballots during a general assembly later that day. Should no candidate have secured an outright majority, a run-off would have been held the same evening to determine the winner. The newly elected floor leader will serve a term of approximately four months, steering the party through to mid-May 2026—a period that includes the high-stakes June local elections.
But the floor leader contest was only half the story. The same day, the party also filled three vacancies on its executive committee, created when incumbents stepped down to pursue local election bids. The race for these coveted positions featured a diverse slate: Moon Jeong-bok and Lee Seong-yoon, both associated with the pro-Jeong Cheong-rae camp, and Lee Geon-tae and Kang Deuk-gu, who have been more critical of the current leadership and have emphasized the need for party-government stability. The contest was closely watched as a bellwether for the balance of power within the party’s top ranks.
The method for selecting executive committee members was slightly different from the floor leader election. Here, votes from rights-holding party members and the Central Committee were weighted equally, each accounting for 50% of the outcome. Voting was conducted online from January 9 to January 11, with an automatic response system (ARS) supplementing the process on January 10 and 11. This dual-track approach, as explained by JTBC, was designed to maximize participation and ensure the legitimacy of the results.
One notable feature of the executive committee election was the use of a ‘two-person joint candidacy’ system, which allowed each rights holder to cast votes for two candidates. This approach, which has been employed in previous party elections, was intended to reflect the complexity of party loyalties and to give members a broader say in shaping the leadership team.
The stakes were high, and not only because of the impending local elections. The Democratic Party has been grappling with allegations of illegal campaign financing related to candidate nominations—a cloud that has threatened to undermine public trust and destabilize the party’s leadership. The outcome of these internal elections, therefore, was widely seen as a test of the party’s ability to regroup and present a united front. As Newsis pointed out, the results would likely signal whether the party would continue to be dominated by the current leadership or whether a new balance of power might emerge.
Throughout the election process, the specter of factionalism loomed large. The contest for executive committee seats, in particular, was viewed by many as a proxy battle between supporters of party leader Jeong Cheong-rae and those aligned with other influential figures. Moon Jeong-bok and Lee Seong-yoon, both seen as close to Jeong, were pitted against Lee Geon-tae and Kang Deuk-gu, who have been more critical of the current leadership. The results would determine whether Jeong’s grip on the party would be strengthened or challenged.
Adding another layer of complexity, Yoo Dong-cheol, who had initially campaigned as a staunch supporter of Lee Jae-myung, withdrew from the race midway through the process. His exit narrowed the field and heightened the focus on the remaining candidates, whose differing visions for the party’s future were on full display during a series of televised debates.
The party’s internal elections were not held in a vacuum. As Newsis reported, they took place against the backdrop of an expanding list of parliamentary by-elections, which now includes four constituencies: Incheon Gyeyang-eul and Chungnam Asan-eul, both previously held by President Lee Jae-myung and Chief Presidential Secretary Kang Hoon-sik, respectively, as well as districts formerly represented by Lee Byung-jin and Shin Young-dae, who lost their seats following court rulings. The outcomes of these races will be closely watched for signs of voter sentiment ahead of the June local polls.
In the days leading up to the vote, media coverage focused on the candidates’ platforms and the broader implications for party unity. During a televised debate hosted by JTBC on January 8, Park Jeong called for a cautious approach to the ongoing investigation into the party’s nomination process, stating, "It is important to follow democratic procedures through the Ethics Tribunal’s investigation." His remarks underscored the delicate balance between transparency and due process that the party must navigate as it seeks to restore credibility.
Ultimately, the results of the January 11 elections will set the tone for the Democratic Party’s approach to governance, both internally and in the broader political arena. With new leaders at the helm and a reconfigured executive committee, the party faces the dual challenge of healing internal divisions and presenting a compelling vision to voters ahead of a critical election season.
As the dust settles, party members and observers alike will be watching closely to see whether the new leadership can rise to the occasion, forging consensus and charting a course that resonates with both their base and the broader electorate. The next few months promise to be a defining period for the party, with the potential to reshape the political landscape in ways both subtle and profound.
