20260101_COL_A : Policy debate overshadowed by presidential micromanagement

 

Jang Deok-jin
 
The author is a professor of sociology at Seoul National University.
 
 
 
Assessments of Korea’s outlook for 2026 by foreign media and research institutions tend to converge on several points. 
 
First, the domestic economy may see a short-term rebound supported by expansionary fiscal policy, but over the medium to long term there is concern that already delayed structural reforms could be pushed back even further. Second, Korea finds itself exposed to North Korean threats at the intersection of powerful external forces: supply chain disruptions and tariff risks, China’s economic pressure, closer ties between North Korea and Russia, a redefinition of trilateral cooperation among Korea, the United States and Japan and the Ukraine-Russia conflict alongside NATO rearmament driven by the return of U.S. President Donald Trump for a second term. Third, there is a high degree of policy uncertainty over how these challenges will be managed. To put it bluntly, there is a saying that even if a wealthy family collapses, it can survive for three generations. Korea is not collapsing yet, but it is increasingly seen as a wealthy household that could fall apart if left unattended.
 

President Lee Jae Myung, center, flanked by senior aides, enters the main building of the Blue House compound in central Seoul on Dec. 29, starting his first official day of work after the relocation of the presidential office from Yongsan. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

 
Among these factors, some are squarely within Korea’s control. Policy uncertainty is the most obvious example. The ideal scenario would be to identify and consistently pursue the best possible policies, but that is rarely easy. Even if the right long-term policies are identified, they can quickly go astray when misguided beliefs of leaders, political opposition, vested interests and risk-averse bureaucrats converge. Orchestrating all of this like a symphony to deliver results is the task of leadership. Former presidents Park Chung Hee and Kim Dae-jung continue to be highly regarded largely because of their ability to conduct such orchestration and elevate the nation’s standing.
 
The picture presented by the Lee Jae Myung administration over the course of 2025, however, has been a source of growing unease. First, there have been too many unconventional policies and appointments. The word “unconventional” literally implies breaking established norms, often by replacing mainstream practices or figures. Such moves may appear refreshing in the moment, but mainstream systems often reflect the best solutions that have survived long testing. Changing institutions, personnel and procedures wholesale only to find that no one knows how things actually work would be disastrous. That risk is compounded if the resulting vacuum is filled by the president’s close associates.
 

Related Article

• President Lee calls for unity, inclusiveness as controversy rages over conservative Cabinet pick

• President Lee returns to Blue House in 'symbol of recovery and normalization'

• An economic report card six months into the Lee Jae Myung administration

• President Lee Jae Myung and the national anthem wallpaper

• Who speaks frankly to President Lee Jae Myung?

 
Second, the president’s personal interventions in relatively minor issues have been too frequent. The much-discussed live broadcasts of policy briefings revealed not serious debate over long-term and structural challenges highlighted by foreign observers, but rather a president engaging in micromanagement. How to respond to suspected dollar smuggling cases or how to deal with a controversial history book may be important within their respective domains. The president’s real task, however, is to engage in rigorous debate with genuine experts over policies that shape the nation’s long-term trajectory, to coordinate domestic interests and to align with neighboring countries. Intimidating or humiliating bureaucrats only heightens uncertainty among those who must ultimately implement policy, risking paralysis in the vast administrative machinery that operates on a daily basis.
 
It may still be too early to pass final judgment, but one potential turning point lies in efforts to incorporate figures from the political center or moderate conservatives, as seen in the nomination of Lee Hye-hoon as budget minister. Such arrangements are common in parliamentary systems, but it is rare for a president elected under a winner-takes-all system to bring sitting opposition politicians into the Cabinet. Including opposition figures can help ensure policy continuity even after a change of government, often producing positive outcomes for the country.
 

Lee Hye-hoon, nominee for minister of the Ministry of Planning and Budget, arrives at her office set up for her confirmation hearing at the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation in central Seoul on the morning of Dec. 30, saying that “insurrection is an illegal act that destroys democracy” while apologizing that “at the time, I failed to properly grasp the reality of what happened.” [YONHAP]

 
International experience suggests that the difference between success and failure is relatively simple. The most frequently cited success is former U.S. President Abraham Lincoln’s “Team of Rivals,” in which he appointed former primary opponents such as William Seward, Salmon Chase and Edward Bates to key Cabinet posts, forging a broad bipartisan coalition during the Civil War. Failure, by contrast, occurs when appointments of opposition figures are undermined by resistance from hard-liners within the ruling party, or when those appointees are denied real authority and reduced to symbolic figures for publicity purposes.
 
The People Power Party has reacted strongly against such appointments, but given how far it has drifted from public sentiment, its objections are not decisive. The president’s sincerity will be judged by how many additional moderate or conservative experts he brings in and whether he empowers them. Research on minority participation consistently shows that a lone figure ends up as a mere symbol. Once numbers reach a certain threshold, however, they can form a meaningful bloc capable of speaking up. That is when healthy competition begins to correct organizations that might otherwise be swept in only one direction.
 
The period of political upheaval that began with an attempted coup has now ended. The time has also passed for evaluating the president and government primarily through the lens of slogans such as purging insurrection. There are signs, however modest, of potential change. In the new year, one hopes to see the government grappling more often with substantial policy challenges, navigating a difficult international environment with focus and resolve. For the public, that would be the best possible New Year’s gift.


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.