A nation at a political crossroads
Published: 09 Apr. 2025, 00:02
Ko Jung-ae
The author is the editor-in-chief at the JoongAng Sunday.
In just over 50 days, South Koreans will head to the polls to elect a new president. It will be the country’s second election in barely 3 years, following the extraordinary impeachment and removal of President Yoon Suk Yeol. Yet rather than heralding a return to normalcy, the coming vote threatens to push South Korea further into the political extremes it has struggled to escape.
What kind of government will emerge from this moment of reckoning? There are only two likely outcomes — each, in its own way, troubling.
![A notice for preliminary candidate registration for the 21st presidential election is displayed on the screen of the National Election Commission in Gwacheon, Gyeonggi on April 7. [YONHAP]](https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/data/photo/2025/04/09/83e2454e-6f59-4946-a7aa-5e16fa9b9e5f.jpg)
The first is a consolidation of power by the Democratic Party under Lee Jae-myung. If Lee wins the presidency, and the Democratic Party retains its current dominance in the National Assembly — now numbering more than 190 seats — the country will find itself under a government more powerful than any since democratization in 1987.
Korea has seen large legislative majorities before. The Democratic Liberal Party, formed through a controversial merger in 1990, briefly held more than 200 seats. But such power has always come with counterweights: internal party factions, coalition politics, or powerful figures outside the Blue House. That may no longer be the case. Under Lee, the Democratic Party has shown itself capable of pushing through impeachments, budget bills and sweeping legislation without cross-party support. With control over both the executive and legislative branches, such efficiency may only accelerate.
But efficiency is not the same as governance.
The Constitutional Court, in its ruling on Yoon’s removal, made a pointed observation: that the National Assembly must act not for party advantage, but for the people — and that such action requires respect for minority voices, tolerance and restraint. These values have been in short supply across the political spectrum, but particularly within the current opposition, which often conflates power with legitimacy.
![Lee Jae-myung, leader of the main opposition Democratic Party, walks out of the Seoul High Court in Seoul on March 26, after the court overturned a suspended prison term against him for lying as a presidential candidate during the 2022 election, acquitting him of the charge. [YONHAP]](https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/data/photo/2025/04/09/c4b71970-9c9e-480e-9d22-31f6f2db6cfd.jpg)
There are already signs that unchecked power may tempt overreach. Vocal Democratic Party supporters, including the so-called “gaeddal” faction, are now demanding legislation to punish so-called “insurrectionists” — a term left ominously vague. Their proposal includes special investigators, prosecutors and even a separate judicial body, with little clarity on how the accused would be identified or judged. The fact that such calls are even entertained speaks to a troubling drift toward politicized justice.
Nor are institutional checks guaranteed to hold. Acting President Han Duck-soo recently broke with precedent to nominate two Constitutional Court justices, an act that may have been driven more by fear than confidence in democratic restraint.
The alternative to a Lee administration — a conservative victory — is no less fraught. Even with a different president, the National Assembly would remain firmly under Democratic Party control, perpetuating the legislative deadlock that paralyzed previous administrations. South Korea’s political system, with its strong presidency and equally empowered legislature, was not built to function amid sustained hostility between the two branches. The temptation to resort to extralegal tools — as Yoon reportedly did when he considered emergency powers — will not disappear with his departure.
Historical precedent offers little comfort. Roh Tae-woo forged a working majority through backroom mergers. Kim Dae-jung co-opted opposition lawmakers to build a governing coalition. But such maneuvers are increasingly untenable in today’s hyperpolarized environment. Dialogue, persuasion and moral authority are the only tools that remain. They are also, unfortunately, in short supply.
And so, the country faces an unsettling choice. It may soon be governed either by a dominant ruling party with little inclination for compromise, or by a weakened president unable to push through even basic policy. In both cases, democratic dysfunction looms.
What Korea needs is not just a new president, but a renewal of its democratic habits. That begins with humility — on all sides. No party holds a monopoly on virtue, and no leader, however charismatic, should be trusted without limits.
On June 3, voters will not only be choosing a president. They will be choosing a path for the nation. Between power and principle, between expedience and restraint, between dominance and dialogue.
The choice will define not just the next administration, but the future of Korea’s democracy.
Translated from the JoongAng Ilbo using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.
The author is the editor-in-chief at the JoongAng Sunday.
In just over 50 days, South Koreans will head to the polls to elect a new president. It will be the country’s second election in barely 3 years, following the extraordinary impeachment and removal of President Yoon Suk Yeol. Yet rather than heralding a return to normalcy, the coming vote threatens to push South Korea further into the political extremes it has struggled to escape.
What kind of government will emerge from this moment of reckoning? There are only two likely outcomes — each, in its own way, troubling.
A notice for preliminary candidate registration for the 21st presidential election is displayed on the screen of the National Election Commission in Gwacheon, Gyeonggi on April 7. [YONHAP]
Korea has seen large legislative majorities before. The Democratic Liberal Party, formed through a controversial merger in 1990, briefly held more than 200 seats. But such power has always come with counterweights: internal party factions, coalition politics, or powerful figures outside the Blue House. That may no longer be the case. Under Lee, the Democratic Party has shown itself capable of pushing through impeachments, budget bills and sweeping legislation without cross-party support. With control over both the executive and legislative branches, such efficiency may only accelerate.
But efficiency is not the same as governance.
The Constitutional Court, in its ruling on Yoon’s removal, made a pointed observation: that the National Assembly must act not for party advantage, but for the people — and that such action requires respect for minority voices, tolerance and restraint. These values have been in short supply across the political spectrum, but particularly within the current opposition, which often conflates power with legitimacy.
Lee Jae-myung, leader of the main opposition Democratic Party, walks out of the Seoul High Court in Seoul on March 26, after the court overturned a suspended prison term against him for lying as a presidential candidate during the 2022 election, acquitting him of the charge. [YONHAP]
Nor are institutional checks guaranteed to hold. Acting President Han Duck-soo recently broke with precedent to nominate two Constitutional Court justices, an act that may have been driven more by fear than confidence in democratic restraint.
The alternative to a Lee administration — a conservative victory — is no less fraught. Even with a different president, the National Assembly would remain firmly under Democratic Party control, perpetuating the legislative deadlock that paralyzed previous administrations. South Korea’s political system, with its strong presidency and equally empowered legislature, was not built to function amid sustained hostility between the two branches. The temptation to resort to extralegal tools — as Yoon reportedly did when he considered emergency powers — will not disappear with his departure.
Historical precedent offers little comfort. Roh Tae-woo forged a working majority through backroom mergers. Kim Dae-jung co-opted opposition lawmakers to build a governing coalition. But such maneuvers are increasingly untenable in today’s hyperpolarized environment. Dialogue, persuasion and moral authority are the only tools that remain. They are also, unfortunately, in short supply.
And so, the country faces an unsettling choice. It may soon be governed either by a dominant ruling party with little inclination for compromise, or by a weakened president unable to push through even basic policy. In both cases, democratic dysfunction looms.
What Korea needs is not just a new president, but a renewal of its democratic habits. That begins with humility — on all sides. No party holds a monopoly on virtue, and no leader, however charismatic, should be trusted without limits.
On June 3, voters will not only be choosing a president. They will be choosing a path for the nation. Between power and principle, between expedience and restraint, between dominance and dialogue.
The choice will define not just the next administration, but the future of Korea’s democracy.
Translated from the JoongAng Ilbo using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.
Standards Board Policy (0/250자)