Why This Presidential Race Turned Bitter Despite Shared Promises

Kim Sung-tak

 
The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.
 
As Korea’s 21st presidential election heads into its final stretch, many observers are noting a striking absence of signature policies or defining visions from the major candidates. This election, triggered by the impeachment of former President Yoon Suk Yeol following his declaration of martial law, is a by-election rather than a scheduled vote. In such a context, stabilizing governance has taken priority, leaving little room for broader national debates. A similar situation unfolded in 2017, when Park Geun-hye’s impeachment led to an early election dominated by the issue of presidential misconduct.
 

This time, the situation is even more constrained. The People Power Party struggled to finalize its candidate, delaying the launch of its campaign. Still, the lack of a unifying theme or long-term vision from those seeking to govern for the next five years raises concerns.
 
Past presidential elections often hinged on distinctive slogans or transformative ideas. In 2002, former President Roh Moo-hyun ran on a platform of eliminating privilege and unfairness, tying it to the proposal to build a new administrative capital in the Chungcheong region — sparking debate on balanced national development. In 2007, Lee Myung-bak presented his controversial "7-4-7" vision — 7 percent annual growth, $40,000 per capita income and entry into the Group of 7. Though criticized for being overly optimistic and ultimately falling short, the proposal shaped that year’s debate around economic leadership.
 
In 2012, conservative candidate Park Geun-hye broke convention with her “economic democratization” pledge, competing with liberal candidate Moon Jae-in on ideas beyond growth-centric policies. Five years later, Moon proposed income-led growth and a major hike in the minimum wage. In the 2022 race, Yoon Suk Yeol’s narrow win over Lee Jae-myung was seen as a victory for the campaign theme of “fairness.”
 
In contrast, this year’s debates have been underwhelming. Despite being the main opportunity for voters to evaluate candidates directly, the two televised debates offered little substance. The issue of Yoon’s impeachment and martial law declaration had already been widely discussed. Voters were hoping for policy-driven discussions and vision statements, but instead were met with mutual accusations and personal attacks.
 
 
During the second debate, Democratic Party candidate Lee Jae-myung and People Power Party candidate Kim Moon-soo clashed over claims related to past statements on alleged election fraud. Both later filed legal complaints accusing each other of spreading false information. The debate devolved into semantic disputes and refusals to answer questions, undermining the forum’s intended purpose.
 
When comparing the major candidates’ pledges, the differences are minimal. On support for small businesses and self-employed workers, Lee and Kim differ in details but share the overall direction. Lee has proposed a comprehensive plan that includes debt relief and compensation for business owners affected by the national emergency. Kim has pledged special loans for those hit by sales losses and an expansion of grants under a “restart hope” initiative. Both plans require significant government spending.
 
On pension reform, all major candidates — including Lee Jun-seok of the Reform Party — have proposed restructuring plans to address senior poverty. But none have laid out credible funding models. Some proposals, such as extending national health insurance coverage to long-term care services, appear in both Lee and Kim’s platforms. However, the financial sustainability of such promises remains unclear.
 
Even in political reform, including proposals for constitutional amendments to introduce a decentralized governance model, the parties’ positions are not far apart. So why has the race been so fiercely contested?
 
One reason may lie in the political establishment’s tendency to divide voters into allies and enemies. Despite weakening over time, regional loyalties still surface in campaign rhetoric. More recently, partisan narratives have expanded to emphasize generational, gender and class divisions — turning elections into referendums on identity rather than ideas.
 

The stakes remain high. After this presidential vote, local elections will take place next year, followed by the 23rd general election in three years. For voters, the end of this tumultuous presidential term — marked by martial law and a second presidential impeachment — should be a moment to look ahead.
 
To move beyond gridlock, constitutional reform must be prioritized. A more decentralized presidential system could reduce the concentration of power and help de-escalate partisanship. Electoral reform is also needed to allow new political forces to emerge beyond the current two-party dominance. A more pluralistic National Assembly could foster cooperation rather than confrontation.
 
Ultimately, it will fall to voters to shift the direction of politics. The success of any reform depends not only on institutional change, but on an electorate committed to rejecting the politics of division.


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