Voters reject one-party dominance in Korea

Choi Hoon
 
The author is a senior columnist at the JoongAng Ilbo.

The June 3 local elections once again demonstrated the caution and balance of Korea’s voters. No political force, however powerful, could overcome the collective judgment of citizens through populist promises, political maneuvering or efforts to deepen social divisions. The clearest message from the electorate was simple: Never entrust all power to one political camp. The biggest losers of that message were Democratic Party (DP) leader Jung Chung-rae and People Power Party (PPP) leader Jang Dong-hyeok.
 

Vote counting for the ninth nationwide local elections is broadcast on the morning of June 4, showing Democratic Party Seoul mayoral candidate Chong Won-o and People Power Party candidate Oh Se-hoon. After a closely contested race, Oh overtook his rival after 7:30 a.m. and was elected mayor of Seoul. [NEWS1]

 
Until late April, the DP appeared headed for a landslide. It was expected to dominate nearly all metropolitan mayoral and gubernatorial races and most parliamentary by-elections. President Lee Jae Myung’s approval rating hovered around 65 percent while support for the opposition PPP had fallen sharply.
 
Yet the results revealed a more complicated reality. In metropolitan leadership races, the DP won about 52.6 percent of the vote compared with 43.4 percent for the PPP. Although the governing party secured more executive posts under the winner-takes-all system, it failed to translate the president’s popularity into overwhelming electoral support. The result exposed what critics describe as the illusion and arrogance that often accompany power.
 
According to opinion analysts, conservative voters have traditionally been willing to acknowledge the performance of progressive presidents when they believe those leaders are governing effectively. Progressive voters, meanwhile, have generally been less generous toward conservative presidents regardless of administrative competence. This pattern helps explain why former President Moon Jae-in enjoyed approval ratings above 80 percent early in his presidency.
 
Lee’s approval rating reflected a similar dynamic. Many conservative voters, particularly those in their 60s and older who had long distrusted him, appeared willing to concede that he was governing better than expected. Younger voters, however, remained dissatisfied. Many in their 20s and 30s continued to struggle with employment prospects and housing affordability and felt little improvement in their daily lives. The gap between Lee’s support level and Moon’s earlier popularity largely reflected this generational frustration.
  
A turning point came on April 30 when the DP pushed forward legislation establishing a special counsel investigation related to prosecutorial indictments. Critics mocked the proposal as a form of “self-cancellation of prosecution” designed to eliminate legal liabilities through political means. The backlash was immediate. Older conservative voters who had viewed Lee as a capable administrator began to fear that unchecked support could lead to excessive concentration of power.
 
The controversy also energized conservatives who had become discouraged by what they regarded as a weak opposition. Many returned to the polls with renewed motivation. The record-high turnout reflected that shift in sentiment.
 
Housing policy became another source of dissatisfaction. Measures associated with tighter regulation and government intervention in the real estate market generated fatigue among middle-class voters in Seoul and the surrounding metropolitan area. According to this view, those frustrations contributed to the governing party’s disappointing performance in key urban districts.
 
The so-called Starbucks Korea controversy also affected younger voters. Although the company’s largest shareholder repeatedly apologized and the chief executive stepped down, attempts by some progressive activists and politicians to turn the issue into a boycott campaign created resistance among many young women who generally leaned toward progressive politics. While acknowledging mistakes by the company, they questioned why politicians should influence personal consumer choices.
 

Independent candidate Han Dong-hoon greets supporters at his campaign office in Buk District, Busan, on June 4 after securing victory in the parliamentary by-election for the Busan Buk-gap constituency. [YONHAP]

 
For younger voters who place high value on fairness, justice and freedom, the controversies surrounding both the special counsel proposal and the Starbucks Korea issue raised broader concerns. These developments fueled criticism within the DP itself. Jung Chung-rae, long regarded as a powerful strategist and key figure in candidate nominations, increasingly faced complaints that his political judgment had become a liability rather than an asset. Questions emerged about whether he could maintain control of the party beyond August.
 
Yet the most significant loser may have been Jang Dong-hyeok. Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon’s comeback victory was achieved while keeping distance from the party leader throughout much of the campaign. Meanwhile, former party leader Han Dong-hoon won a parliamentary seat in Busan Buk-A as an independent after previously being pushed aside by conservatives who labeled him a traitor. Together, those developments dealt a serious blow to Jang’s authority.
 
The election also appeared to reshape expectations for the future political landscape. Figures such as Kim Boo-kyum, Kim Kyoung-soo and Cho Kuk on the progressive side moved into the background, while Oh Se-hoon and Han Dong-hoon gained momentum among conservatives. Along with Reform Party leader Lee Jun-seok, they emerged as potential counterweights to the dominant DP government.
 
The electorate’s verdict was ultimately a demand for balance. The governing party was instructed to govern with restraint while the conservative opposition was urged to pursue genuine reform and renewal. Korea’s voters signaled that they are unwilling to grant unlimited authority to either side. The message of June 3 was clear: Political power must remain balanced and accountable because the public is always prepared to deliver a harsher judgment when that balance is lost.