Home > Opinion > Columns

A pragmatic president out of sync with a combative ruling party

Published: 21 Oct. 2025, 00:01

Kang Won-taek

The author is a professor of political science and international relations at Seoul National University.

Over the past few months, an intriguing aspect of President Lee Jae Myung’s leadership has been his uneasy relationship with the ruling Democratic Party (DP). On the surface, the party’s tone seems entirely misaligned with the administration’s pragmatic approach. While the president has emphasized practicality and met with opposition leaders, the ruling party leader has spoken of “dissolving the opposition,” treating rival parties as enemies. Such dissonance between a president and his own party is rare in Korean politics. Considering that the phrase bimyeong-hoengsa — meaning that one could not even secure a nomination without loyalty to Lee — was coined during the last general election, the current disconnect is all the more surprising.

Perhaps there is an intentional division of roles — the president engaging with “all citizens” while the party caters to its hard-line base. Yet this apparent separation does not serve Lee well.

President Lee Jae Myung, right, speaks with Democratic Party leader Jung Chung-rae as he heads toward Air Force One at Seoul Air Base in Seongnam on Sept. 22 before departing to attend the United Nations General Assembly. [YONHAP]

The framework for coordination between the executive and the ruling party dates back to the Third Republic, when then — Prime Minister Kim Jong-pil envisioned a system in which the party would guide national governance. From the Blue House to local administrations, coordination councils linked the ruling party with state agencies, allowing the party to convey public sentiment that technocrats focused solely on efficiency might overlook.

That coordination broke Down Under President Roh Moo-hyun. Viewing party-government separation as a political reform to escape the grip of imperial-style party bosses, Roh adhered rigidly to that principle. His party, the Uri Party, was filled with lawmakers driven more by ideology and activism than by political pragmatism. It included hard-liners nicknamed “Taliban” and first-term legislators dubbed the “108 agonies” for their unruly behavior. Many openly opposed Roh’s practical policies. The result was chaos in governance.

For instance, a significant number of Uri lawmakers voted against sending troops to Iraq. On other major initiatives such as the proposal for a grand coalition, the president found himself isolated even within his own party. Both sides were bruised. The dissonance eroded state management, and the Uri Party — despite its sweeping victory with 152 seats in the 2004 general election — collapsed before Roh’s term ended. Later governments, including those of Park Geun-hye and Yoon Suk Yeol, also suffered from deepening rifts with their ruling party leaders. Before leaving office, Roh lamented that “neither the party nor the president takes responsibility,” a sharp criticism of the party-government divide he had once defended.

The current relationship between President Lee and the DP evokes that same division. They appear as two distinct political forces moving in parallel. The ruling party, in particular, seems to have lost its sense of purpose. Observers often note that it is difficult to tell whether the DP acts as a ruling or opposition force. Traditionally, the ruling party has helped the president navigate controversy, persuading and negotiating with the opposition to support government initiatives. Yet current party leader Jung Chung-rae has pledged to “fight the opposition myself,” and has kept that promise. Rather than confronting the opposition, he should meet, negotiate and seek compromise to “create space for the president to govern.” His rhetoric — better suited to an opposition leader — suggests the ruling party is locked in perpetual combat mode.

This hard-line approach is already taking a toll. Polls show the party’s approval rating lags far behind the president’s. But in a presidential system, public judgment of the governing camp does not distinguish between the president and the ruling party. Lee may believe that distancing himself from divisive political battles will preserve his image of pragmatism, but he cannot avoid accountability for his party’s behavior.

Democratic Party leader Jung Chung-rae (left) and People Power Party leader Jang Dong-hyeok watch a formation flight during a ceremony marking the 77th Armed Forces Day at Gyeryongdae military headquarters in South Chungcheong Province on Oct. 1. [YONHAP]

For now, Jung and the DP continue to rally around “cleansing the coup plotters,” yet it remains unclear whether that message will resonate in next year’s local elections. The political calendar matters: though Dec. 31 and Jan. 1 are consecutive days, they mark a sharp shift in public perception. In a year defined by impeachment and a presidential election, “Yoon Suk Yeol” has been a central issue, but by next year the Lee administration itself will face judgment. The ruling party’s confrontational stance could become a liability.

If the DP loses the local elections, the defeat will not be theirs alone — it will directly undermine President Lee’s authority. Should the party’s behavior go unchecked, the president must intervene. Like it or not, the true leader of the ruling party is the president. As Roh Moo-hyun’s painful reflection reminds us, responsibility for managing the party-government relationship ultimately rests with the president himself.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.