Home > Opinion > Columns

What spirit will define Korea’s 2025 presidential election?

Published: 21 Apr. 2025, 00:01

Kim Ho-ki

The author is a Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Yonsei University

“The flag must be clear. If the flag is clear, you will eventually win.” These words, spoken by former President Roh Moo-hyun, are recorded in a book by Yoon Tae-young, who served as Blue House spokesperson during the Roh administration.

In politics, language must not only reflect public sentiment but also move it. A political leader must hold up a flag. That flag shows the direction the nation, and its people must follow. Another name for that flag is the “spirit of the times.”

Eight lawmakers discuss on how to reform the Constitution at the National Assembly in western Seoul in 1987. [YONHAP]

This raises an essential question: What is the spirit of the times for Korea’s upcoming presidential election on June 3?

Unlike legislative or local elections, a presidential vote in Korea holds particular significance, often because it centers on defining that era’s political and societal direction. The spirit of the times, or zeitgeist, is a value-driven compass forged by diagnosing the past and present and envisioning the future. Choosing a president becomes a process through which each candidate raises a flag, initiating a national debate that ideally leads to public consensus.

A protester in support of former President Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment, left, holds up a picture of democracy activist Park Jong-chul during a rally at Seoul National University (SNU) in Gwanak District, southern Seoul, on Feb. 15. Park, an SNU graduate, was killed in January 1987 while protesting the Chun Doo Hwan regime. [YONHAP]

But this zeitgeist does not arise in a vacuum. It is embedded in history and shaped by social context. Understanding where the nation has been and where it stands is a prerequisite for any leader seeking broad public support. That understanding involves filtering out the noise to detect meaningful signals. As of 2025, one of those signals is the need to break away from what I call Korea’s “two-layered systems” of the past.

The first of these is the so-called 1987 system. From the emergency decree of Dec. 3 to the impeachment and removal of the president on April 4, the public has been focused on the failings of Korea’s hyper-presidential political structure.

Ironically, the same institutional framework that enabled excessive concentration of power — what many describe as an imperial presidency — also allowed for its correction. Korea’s 1987 Constitution, which introduced direct presidential elections, enshrined in Article 1, Clause 2 that “All power comes from the people.” That civic ethos has been the bedrock of Korean democracy.

Still, the 1987 system reveals the perennial tension between structure and agency. If that system has contributed to democratic backsliding, the reasons lie in both institutional flaws — like the winner-takes-all electoral framework — and the subjective shortcomings of leadership. Overcoming it requires constitutional reform to distribute power more equitably, alongside leadership grounded in tolerance and compromise.

We can no longer postpone amending the 1987 Constitution. Yet structural reform alone is not enough. A democratic culture and style of leadership must grow in tandem.

The second historical layer is the “1997 system,” which took shape after the Asian financial crisis. In the wake of that shock, Korea embraced globalization and neoliberalism as the pillars of its economic recovery. This approach had both benefits and costs.

While external openness created favorable conditions for economic growth, it also deepened domestic inequality. Bridging this divide — by transforming the gains of globalization into resources for internal welfare — has long been one of Korea’s central policy challenges.

Since the 2008 financial crisis, the 1997 system has been tested by two major developments. First, income and wealth polarization has worsened. Second, the world has shifted from an era of free trade to one of neo-protectionism. The tariff wars initiated by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump signaled this shift and ushered in a new era of global trade fragmentation.

The next Korean administration, beginning June 4, must place at the heart of its policy vision a dual strategy — growth and distribution, openness and welfare. Equally important is a pragmatic, interest-based approach to foreign and trade policy, especially amid intensifying U.S.-China competition.

A person walks into the National Eleciton Commission building in Gwacheon, Gyeonggi on April 7. [YONHAP]

The goal for this election, then, should be to forge a new national consensus. Overcoming both the 1987 and 1997 systems means building a sustainable democratic and economic model.

In this context, I am reminded of the concept of the “narrow corridor” developed by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson. It refers to the narrow path between despotic government and societal anarchy. For Korea to establish itself as a mature democracy and advanced economy, the state and civil society must maintain a productive, cooperative balance within that corridor.

There are clear goals that must guide us toward sustainable development and democracy.

First, there can be no welfare without growth. Candidates should propose a blueprint for a renewed industrial ecosystem, grounded in social compromise, to respond to the ongoing scientific and technological revolution.

Second, democracy requires both institutions and culture. Any serious platform must include plans for constitutional reform that redistributes power and for political innovations that promote national unity.

The two foundational forces that have supported Korea — economic growth and democratic governance — must be revisited. Candidates owe it to voters to articulate how their leadership will interpret and carry forward these twin legacies.

Another name for the political flag is “voice.” And that voice ultimately belongs to the people. It is the role of democratic leadership to embody the public’s collective yearning for a better future. An election is the very mechanism through which multiple voices are heard and one is chosen.

Many Koreans are now listening closely, waiting not just for campaign promises but for a clear vision. I know I am not the only one.

Translated from the JoongAng Ilbo using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.