On April 18, 2026, the South Korean National Assembly passed a sweeping package of election reforms, setting the stage for significant changes in the country’s local political landscape. The legislative changes, agreed upon by both the ruling Democratic Party and the main opposition People Power Party, will take effect in time for the June 3 local elections and are already sparking heated debate across the political spectrum.
Among the most consequential provisions is the amendment to the Political Parties Act, which now allows local party organizations—such as party member councils and regional committees—to establish and operate one office each under their jurisdiction. Previously, only incumbent lawmakers could maintain such offices, meaning that defeated candidates and off-parliament party officials were effectively shut out from maintaining a physical presence in their constituencies. According to Chosun Ilbo, this change is widely viewed as a de facto revival of the district party system (known as "jigu-dang"), which was abolished in 2004 amid a wave of illegal political funding scandals.
For decades, district parties served as the backbone of regional political organization, giving both elected and unelected figures a base from which to cultivate local support, manage staff, and, crucially, raise funds. However, as News1 reports, the system was dismantled after high-profile abuses—including the notorious 2002 "truckload of cash" incident, where vast sums of illegal donations were funneled to party offices. In the wake of those scandals, South Korea’s legislature moved to ban local party offices outside of those run by sitting lawmakers, hoping to curb the role of money in politics.
Now, with the passage of the new reforms, some worry history could repeat itself. Minor parties and critics are sounding the alarm, arguing that the move risks entrenching the dominance of the two major parties and reigniting the specter of "money politics." As Mediatoday notes, the Progressive Innovation Party, Progressive Party, Basic Income Party, and Social Democratic Party all opposed the bill, calling for a much higher increase in proportional representation to give smaller parties a fighting chance. In a joint statement, leaders from these parties declared, “The bill only serves the interests of the major parties and revives the old district party system for their benefit.”
Yet, the major parties insist that the reforms are measured and responsible. Both the Democratic Party and People Power Party have emphasized that, while local offices are now permitted, the right to raise political donations at these offices remains strictly prohibited—a critical distinction from the old jigu-dang model. As Democratic Party lawmaker Yoon Kun-young put it, “We are only allowing the operation of local offices, not any change to fundraising rules. This is not a revival of the district party system.”
Still, not everyone on the left is unhappy. The Democratic Party’s own Out-of-Parliament District Committee Chairs’ Association welcomed the change, calling it a “historic turning point” and celebrating the return of local political infrastructure for candidates and activists who fall outside the parliamentary mainstream.
Beyond the question of party offices, the reform package also tackles the structure of local legislatures. The most headline-grabbing element is the increase in the proportion of metropolitan council seats filled by proportional representation—from 10% to 14%. This is the first such increase since proportional representation was introduced to local legislatures in 1995, and its impact will be felt immediately. According to Law Times Korea, the number of proportional metropolitan councilors will jump from 93 in 2022 to about 120 in the upcoming elections, while the total number of councilors will rise from 872 to approximately 927.
Proponents argue that this modest increase will make local legislatures more representative and responsive to the needs of a diverse electorate. However, critics—including several minor parties—insist the increase is too small to make a meaningful difference, and that it will mostly benefit the dominant parties in their regional strongholds. As Mediatoday observes, “The increase is so slight that in Honam, the Democratic Party is likely to gain an extra seat, while in Yeongnam, it will be the People Power Party.” Many minor parties had pushed for a proportional representation rate of 30%, arguing that anything less leaves them marginalized.
The reforms also introduce a new electoral mechanism: medium-sized electoral districts, known locally as "jungdae seongeogu-je." For the first time, four National Assembly constituencies in Gwangju—Dongnam-gap, Buk-gu-gap, Buk-gu-eul, and Gwangsan-eul—will elect three to four metropolitan councilors each, rather than just one or two. The number of basic council districts using this medium-sized district system will expand from 11 to 27 nationwide. This change is designed to encourage greater diversity among elected officials and reduce the dominance of single-party slates in local races, although its actual impact remains to be seen.
The legislative process itself was a study in political maneuvering. The bills were originally scheduled for passage on April 17, but last-minute procedural delays pushed the final vote to the early hours of April 18. When the vote finally came, the reforms passed with overwhelming support: the amendment to the Public Official Election Act was approved by 184 out of 213 lawmakers present, with only four voting against and 25 abstaining. The Political Parties Act amendment passed with 198 in favor, one against, and 14 abstentions, according to Mediatoday.
Despite the broad consensus among the major parties, the reforms have exposed deep divisions over the future of South Korean democracy. Supporters argue that the changes will revitalize local politics and give more citizens a voice in the political process. Critics, meanwhile, warn that without stronger safeguards against corruption and more robust representation for minor parties, the reforms risk consolidating power in the hands of a few and repeating the mistakes of the past. As Professor Shin Yul of Myongji University told News1, “There should have been more careful consideration of the role of local legislators and the spending of public funds on their salaries. Voters hardly know who their local councilors are, and these changes may not address the underlying problems.”
With the June 3 local elections fast approaching, all eyes are now on how these reforms will play out in practice. Will the return of local party offices and the expansion of proportional representation foster a more vibrant democracy—or simply reinforce old patterns? For now, South Korea’s political future hangs in the balance, with both hope and skepticism in the air.