Kim Byung-yeon
The author is a chair professor of economics at Seoul National University.
The year 2025 has arrived, but the nation’s future looks bleak. The martial law crisis has reduced Korea — once poised to leap into the ranks of global powers — back to the status of a developing country. The economic, cultural and geopolitical ripple effects could rival those of the 1997 financial crisis, causing profound harm to the entire nation. The key to overcoming this lies in politics. Yet, unlike during the financial crisis, when the country united as “us,” Korea is now fractured into “you” and “me.” There is no president to lead. Even if the Constitutional Court rejects the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol, it is difficult to imagine him continuing in office.
This crisis presents an opportunity to reform political institutions, a sentiment that resonates with many. However, would the opposition party, confident that it is on the cusp of power, pursue such reform? How many lawmakers care more about the nation than about securing nominations? Lawmakers, as if possessed, make reckless remarks and decisions that could close businesses and jeopardize national security. Proposals for electoral reform, a four-year presidential term with the possibility of re-election or a decentralized government structure are met with indifference. The political polarization fueled by social media has rendered meaningful reform of the presidency unlikely. Efforts to improve transparency and communication within the National Election Commission, while necessary, also seem unattainable in the short term.
The power to rebuild this faltering nation lies with "us." Ultimately, the responsibility for electing leaders rests with the people. Looking back, there have been prime ministers more capable than their presidents. Among the previously mentioned presidential hopefuls, there were likely more suitable candidates. Despite their hard work and diligence, Koreans often lack the discernment to elect capable leaders. In contrast, voters in stable democracies, who generally work less and enjoy better living standards, excel at selecting their leaders. What kind of candidate should Koreans support? Who, in this critical moment, can lead the nation forward?
We must abandon the fantasy of a “knight in shining armor.” What the nation needs now is incremental political progress. The era of heroes and great figures transforming Korea in a single stroke is over. Instead, we must choose leaders of wisdom and integrity to move the nation forward step by step. In a climate where every action of a president and their family is under scrutiny and half the populace opposes any initiative, candidates who inspire trust through character, rather than capability, must be prioritized. Political novices should be excluded; the dangers of inexperience, as starkly demonstrated by the martial law crisis, cannot be ignored.
Candidates who easily change their principles must also be disqualified. The nostalgia for strong leaders must be relinquished. Strength without prudence and inconsistency in principles leads to instability and risk. This is a time to minimize risks, not maximize returns. The geopolitical tremors shaking the economy and threatening war demand careful and deliberate leadership. North Korea’s recklessness, such as deploying large forces to support a major power, adds to this volatile mix. A “strong” leader attempting quick fixes could escalate these dangers.
The reputation of a candidate’s family, particularly their spouse, must also be considered. Conservative administrations often lack stability because their presidents often rise to power through individual prowess rather than collective support. By contrast, progressive administrations typically rely on the strength of aligned factions, prioritizing collective interests over individual ambitions. While factions can prioritize their own agendas over national interests, they are unlikely to let family scandals derail governance — they have too much at stake. Conversely, in conservative administrations, Cabinet members often owe their positions to the president, avoiding candid counsel or failing to be effective even when they do speak out. This creates a vacuum often filled by the president’s spouse, whose influence can lead to questionable appointments and decisions. Could this “invisible hand” have been a factor in the martial law crisis? If the opposition also leans heavily on fervent supporters rather than longstanding alliances, the influence and character of spouses become even more crucial.
We must ask ourselves: Do we critically evaluate political candidates, or do we blindly label them as either absolutely good or evil? It is skeptical, questioning voters — not fanatical followers — who protect democracy. Fandom politics is a blight on democracy. Are we a force for rebuilding a collapsing nation, or a destructive power? The wisdom and courage that have seen us through countless national crises give us hope. As we take a step into the new year, the enduring strength of "us" is what propels us forward.
Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.
