Speaker of Parliament Urges Constitutional Reform Amid Opposition Resistance

South Korea’s National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik has intensified pressure on the main opposition People Power Party (PPP) over constitutional reform, accusing its leadership of mirroring the political tactics of former President Yoon Suk-yeol. In a series of public remarks on April 26, 2026, Woo framed the PPP’s resistance to a proposed constitutional amendment as a revival of what he termed “Yoon-again” politics—a reference to the former president’s contentious tenure and his administration’s efforts to centralize power.

Woo’s Criticism of Opposition Stance

Speaking at a press briefing, Woo directly challenged the PPP’s opposition to the amendment, which seeks to enshrine the 1980 Gwangju Uprising as the “May 18 Gwangju Democratic Uprising” in the constitution. The proposal, part of a broader reform package, has become a flashpoint in South Korea’s political landscape, with the PPP arguing that the timing and scope of the amendment are politically motivated. Woo, however, dismissed these concerns, stating that the PPP’s refusal to engage in dialogue on the issue reflects a pattern of obstructionism reminiscent of Yoon’s presidency.

“Isn’t the force opposing constitutional reform the same ‘Yoon-again’ group?” Woo asked, according to reports by MBC News and Yonhap Infomax. He further warned that if the amendment fails, the PPP would bear “full responsibility” for the political fallout, framing the debate as a test of the party’s commitment to democratic principles. Woo’s remarks were echoed in a separate statement to YTN, where he emphasized that the PPP’s stance risked alienating voters ahead of the 2026 general elections, particularly among younger demographics who view the Gwangju Uprising as a pivotal moment in South Korea’s democratization.

Constitutional Reform as a Political Battleground

The proposed amendment to formally recognize the Gwangju Uprising in the constitution has gained traction amid broader calls for political reform. Woo and his allies in the ruling Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) argue that the amendment is a long-overdue acknowledgment of the event’s historical significance, which saw pro-democracy protesters clash with military forces in 1980. The uprising, which resulted in hundreds of deaths, has been officially commemorated but never explicitly named in the constitution.

In a speech reported by Yonhap News, Woo stated, “The May 18 Democratic Uprising must be clearly stated in the constitution. This is not just about history—it’s about the values that define our democracy.” The amendment, if passed, would mark the first time the event is constitutionally recognized, a move Woo and the DPK have framed as a moral imperative. However, the PPP has countered that the amendment is being rushed through without sufficient public consultation, accusing the DPK of using the issue to rally its base ahead of the 2026 elections.

PPP’s Response and Broader Implications

The PPP has not directly addressed Woo’s “Yoon-again” accusation but has instead focused on procedural objections. Party leaders have argued that the amendment process lacks transparency and that the DPK is prioritizing symbolic gestures over substantive reform. In a statement to Newsis, a PPP spokesperson said, “The Speaker’s remarks are a distraction from the real issues facing our country. The focus should be on economic recovery and national security, not political posturing.”

The standoff reflects deeper divisions within South Korea’s political landscape, where constitutional reform has become a proxy for broader ideological battles. Woo’s invocation of “Yoon-again” politics is particularly significant, as it ties the PPP’s current leadership to the legacy of Yoon Suk-yeol, whose presidency was marked by clashes with the judiciary, media, and opposition parties. Yoon, who left office in 2025 amid low approval ratings, remains a polarizing figure, and his influence continues to shape political discourse.

Next Steps and Electoral Ramifications

The constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly, a threshold that the DPK does not currently meet without bipartisan support. Woo’s remarks suggest that the ruling party is preparing to frame the PPP’s opposition as a failure of leadership, potentially using the issue as a campaign tool in the upcoming elections. Analysts note that the debate over the Gwangju Uprising’s constitutional recognition could galvanize progressive voters, particularly in the southwestern region, where the event holds deep symbolic resonance.

For the PPP, the challenge lies in balancing its opposition to the amendment with the need to avoid being perceived as dismissive of historical grievances. The party’s leadership has sought to shift the narrative toward economic and security issues, but Woo’s accusations have placed it on the defensive. As the 2026 elections approach, the constitutional reform debate is likely to remain a contentious issue, with both parties seeking to define the terms of the political battle.

Woo’s latest comments underscore the high stakes of the reform process, which extends beyond the Gwangju Uprising to include broader questions about South Korea’s democratic institutions. Whether the amendment succeeds or fails, the debate has already become a defining feature of the country’s political landscape in the lead-up to the 2026 elections.