Lee Jun-seok has publicly criticized independent lawmaker Han Dong-hoon, fueling internal conflicts within the pan-conservative political camp in Seoul [1, 2].
The dispute highlights a deepening rift among conservative leaders as they struggle for influence and ideological dominance. This friction threatens the stability of the coalition as key figures clash over the legacy of past political crises and the legitimacy of current members.
During a People Power Party leadership meeting, Lee addressed the use of emergency martial law as a political tool. He specifically referenced the events of Dec. 3, 2021 [1].
"I hope there is no one who uses martial law for their own political makeup," Lee said. "In particular, we must be wary of those who can even frame others for their own makeup" [1].
The tension extends to Rep. Ahn Cheol-soo, who has expressed opposition to Han Dong-hoon returning to the party [1]. This alignment between Lee and Ahn creates a significant hurdle for Han's potential reintegration into the party structure.
Further complicating the conflict is a controversy involving former Busan mayoral candidate Jung Yi-han. Discussions have surfaced regarding a "staged terror attack" associated with Jung [1, 2]. These allegations have added a layer of volatility to the internal debates, as members accuse one another of manipulating public perception through fabricated crises.
The conflict centers on whether certain figures are leveraging national security narratives to advance personal political agendas. The dispute over the timing and location of party meetings has further mirrored the broader ideological struggle within the leadership [1, 2].
“"I hope there is no one who uses martial law for their own political makeup,"”
The alignment of Lee Jun-seok and Ahn Cheol-soo against Han Dong-hoon suggests a strategic effort to isolate Han from the conservative mainstream. By linking Han to controversial rhetoric regarding the 2021 martial law and the Jung Yi-han terror allegations, critics are attempting to frame him as a liability rather than an asset. This internal fragmentation indicates that the pan-conservative camp remains divided over leadership style and the ethical boundaries of political maneuvering.
