[fn Square] ‘General election’ already on the agenda; concerns grow over policy retreat

I remember it was about two months before the local elections. I was meeting with a Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) lawmaker regarded as a key figure in the pro-Lee Jae-myung faction. President Lee Jae-myung’s approval rating for his handling of state affairs was around the mid-60s, and stock prices were also doing well. The mood was upbeat. The lawmaker said, “After the June 3 election, we’ll drive policy for a year.” He looked confident, as if asking what could possibly stand in his way. The opposition People Power Party was mired in infighting and turmoil. Given the DPK’s advantage as the majority party, an ineffectual opposition and supportive public opinion, it was not such an excessive ambition. Considering the political calendar, with no nationwide elections between the local elections and next year, it seemed a sound strategy.
Then things went wrong. The local election results fell short of expectations. President Lee’s approval rating also began to decline. The DPK’s national convention merely exposed internal strife in the form of a “Myeong-Cheong feud.” There was even talk of a party split. Divisions within the ruling camp deepened. Time passed without the legislative drive even getting started. More recently, controversies over appointments added to the troubles. In a reshuffle involving ministers from six ministries, undertaken in an effort to rally the support base and turn the tide, the nominees for justice minister and minister of gender equality and family failed to make it through. Both President Lee and the DPK suffered a considerable blow. If there is an achievement, it may be the launch of a new criminal justice system that abolishes the Prosecutors’ Office and establishes the Serious Crime Investigation Agency and the Public Prosecution Office.
Politics feeds on voters’ preferences. Elections are the biggest political events in which those preferences come to the fore. Just over four months have passed of the year in which the party said it would drive policy. It is too early for talk of the general election to be emerging now. It means the political landscape and public support have moved off their expected course. DPK leader Kim Min-seok said during a visit to Busan on the 3rd, “The main battleground in the 2028 general election will be Busan and the Nakdong River.” It could be dismissed as the kind of election planning that routinely comes up during visits to local areas. But remarks from the DPK about “winning the general election and recreating the administration” are also heard from time to time. The voices within the ruling DPK are understandable to some extent. The president’s approval rating has typically determined the outcome of elections held midway through a term. The DPK’s strong showing in the June 3 election also benefited from President Lee’s approval rating. In Gallup Korea’s “May aggregate” survey, his approval rating was 63%. It is now in the mid-to-high 30s.
When the words “general election” or “election” start cropping up prematurely in political circles in Yeouido, policy tends to retreat. That is even more true amid a decline in approval ratings for both the president and the party, as is happening now. We have already seen an example: the policy push to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) has been reversed. The process was also abrupt. On the 29th of last month, President Lee made the pursuit of CPTPP membership official. The CPTPP is a mega free trade agreement (FTA) led by 12 middle powers, including Japan, the United Kingdom, Australia and Mexico. The government planned to use next month’s CPTPP ministerial meeting in Vietnam as the starting point for its membership bid. A week later, on the 6th, the situation changed. President Lee said the plan should be reconsidered from square one. Two days later, on the 8th, he ordered that the application for membership be put on hold for the rest of the year. It appears that concerns over a backlash in rural areas—if opposition among farmers to a comprehensive survey of farmland coincided with the CPTPP accession push—prompted the sharp policy reversal.
South Korea, a trading powerhouse, has halted its bid to join an FTA, a vehicle for expanding trade. This is not a good sign. South Korea is caught in a “sandwich” position amid the U.S.-China contest for hegemony and the reconfiguration of supply chains. The CPTPP was seen as a breakthrough that could improve the country’s defensive position.
When policy loses ground, populism is more likely to fill the void. From the perspective of political calculus that prioritizes votes, this is a natural development. That is why the use of the Future Response Fund, which amounts to 162 trillion won in the 2027 budget proposal, has become controversial. One might hope it would serve, as its name suggests, as the nation’s purse for the future. But when the lid was lifted, the reality proved somewhat different. Evidence emerged that a substantial portion includes spending on consumption and handouts, including cash payments and allowances. It is no surprise that the opposition focused its attacks on the fund during the parliamentary audit.
It is true that farmers would suffer considerable harm if South Korea joined the CPTPP. But carefully designed measures could minimize the damage and mediate conflicts. If trade strategy keeps veering back and forth, the future of a country that lives by exports will look bleak. We should reflect on why the conclusion of the KORUS FTA, pursued by former President Roh Moo-hyun, continues to be highly regarded. The same goes for the Future Response Fund. Potential growth is declining ever further. Future industries require such massive investment that the private sector can scarcely manage it alone. The fund should serve its original purpose and act as seed money for the future of our economy. We must not sacrifice the future of the people and the country to defend the president’s approval rating or fret about the general election. We need to take the long view.
[email protected] Kim Gyu-seong, Political Desk Chief Reporter