[fn Editorial] 'Populist Projects' Ruling on Local Government Heads, Distinguishing Between Good and Bad is Important

The Supreme Court confirmed the liability for compensation of a former local government head in connection with the Yongin Light Rail Project, which caused a loss of approximately 2 trillion won in taxpayer money over 30 years. It is the first case in 30 years since the introduction of the local autonomy system in 1995. The residents of Yongin City filed a lawsuit against the mayor in October 2013, and after 12 years, the case concluded with a victory. The compensation amounted to a staggering 21.4 billion won. The residents' lawsuit group stated, "This is the first case to put an end to the wrongful practice of 'starting a project during the term and leaving it after retirement.'"

This ruling has implications beyond mere monetary compensation, as it legally punishes the final decision-maker who wasted massive taxpayer money. It demands caution and a sense of responsibility in the policy-making process of local governments, beyond the rights and wrongs of specific projects.

In particular, it sounds a warning to candidates running for governor, mayor, county head, and district head in the 9th nationwide simultaneous local elections on June 3 next year. It is significant in that it clarifies that if a reckless pledge is made and a project is pushed forward with the mindset of 'just get elected,' the individual local government head can also be held liable for compensation. It sends a strong signal that even if elected, one can face ruin if elected with 'blank checks' without specific funding plans, feasibility, or policy expectations. Local government heads aiming for multiple terms must be aware that starting so-called 'populist' projects just before elections, conscious of votes, may lead to future legal responsibilities.

To prevent this, voter or media scrutiny of blank check pledges or large-scale development projects with uncertain economic feasibility and demand forecasts must be strengthened. The legalization of transparent public verification systems, such as objective feasibility evaluations by expert groups and citizen public hearings, can also be considered. There is a need for precise blocking devices to fundamentally block populist projects. 'Rash pledges' and 'impromptu pledges' can become targets of resident lawsuits and compensation claims. Thorough post-management and supervision of pledge implementation after elections are also important. National local councils, which decide on development project plans or budgets of local governments, cannot be free from joint responsibility. It is not too wrong to say they are 'joint offenders' for failing to properly review the feasibility of the local government head's projects or control budget execution.

However, what needs to be noted is distinguishing between 'principled administration' and 'populist projects' to separate the wheat from the chaff. It is problematic to indiscriminately impose compensation liability even on projects (including SOC) that are inevitably pursued for resident convenience and regional economic revitalization. Imposing compensation liability on principled administration could produce unintended victims. There is a possibility of similar resident lawsuits being filed in the future. We must not let the fear of maggots prevent us from making kimchi. Excessive administrative contraction should not hinder the improvement of the quality of life of local residents. Those who want to become loyal public servants must propose 'good policies.' Above all, voters themselves must resist the temptation of populism and be able to discern true principled administrators.