Deep Dive
Shownotes Transcript
North Korea is the impossible state. It's a place that stumped leaders and policymakers for more than three decades. It has a complex history, and it has become the United States' top national security priority. Each week on this show, we'll talk with the people who know the most about North Korea.
Welcome everyone to another episode of the Impossible State podcast at CSIS. My name is Victor Cha, Senior Vice President for Asia, Korea Chair and Professor at Georgetown University. We're very happy to welcome back to the program today Ramon Pacheco-Pardo to have a conversation about South Korea's recent national election results that took place last week.
Ramon, again, is no stranger to the program, no stranger to CSIS. He's a professor of international relations at King's College London and is also the KFVUB career chair at the Brussels School of Governance at the VUB in Brussels. So I have a pretty short commute between Georgetown and CSIS, but you have a slightly longer commute between Brussels and London.
He is also the King's College Regional Envoy for East and Southeast Asia, an adjunct fellow with us here at the Korea Chair at CSIS, council member of the Elcano Royal Institute in Madrid, and committee member at CSCAP. He is a prolific author. His most recent book is the one that we authored together, " A New History," by Yale University Press.
But he also has written, what is this? He's written three additional books in a period of four years. He's written South Korea's Grand Strategy, published by Columbia in 2023, Shrimp to Whale: South Korea from the Forgotten War to K-Pop, published by Hearst and Oxford University Press in 2022.
and North Korea-US relations from Kim Jong Il to Kim Jong Un published by Rutledge in 2019. So a prolific, prolific author. And so we're very happy to have you back on the program again, Ramon. It's a pleasure to be back here, Victor. Thanks. So like I said, we're going to talk about these elections in South Korea that took place.
And we have a little graphic to start us off to give people a sense of what changed during this period of time when South Koreans went to the polls. So this is what the makeup looked like of the National Assembly in 2023. The blue represents the main opposition party in Korea, the Democratic Party. And the red represents the ruling party, the People Power Party.
And as we saw, the opposition party held 156 seats prior to last week's election, and the People Power Party held 114 seats prior to the election. Koreans went to the polls last week, and the results were a victory for the opposition party. So if we go back to the overall look here,
Again, they had 156 seats, the Democratic Party did prior to the election. They increased that margin to 175 seats.
And then the ruling party lost, what is that, six or seven seats as a result of this election. And then there was also a splinter party, the so-called Rebuilding Korea Party, which garnered 12 seats. So this was clearly a victory for the opposition Democratic Party
I've been criticized on social media a bit because I said that I thought the international press was, were all sort of piling on using the same terminology, landslide crushing defeat for the ruling party, where as we'll talk about some of the benchmarks that really would have given the Democratic Party a great deal of power were not met.
And a lot of people got angry at me for doing that, but that's okay. But according to the latest polling that we've seen, the Democratic Party still, I mean, even though they won this election, they still polled only 37% in terms of party support. The ruling party, even though they lost in this election, are only slightly lower at 33.6%.
And this was a survey that took place this week. So, and President Yun's approval rating is at 32%, so which is down about 5%, and certainly not, well, I guess one could say par for the course in terms of his overall approval ratings. They've not been very good throughout his presidency. So let's talk about this, right, Ramon? And I guess the first question I want to ask you is,
you know in your opinion was this really was this a win for the opposition democratic party or was it really a negative vote against the incumbent uh uh part of the incumbent president and the party in my view this particular election was more of the latter there was a vote against the president himself
and against his party. And we saw this in the run-up to the election, in which foreign policy was not really discussed at all. It's not commonly discussed, as we know, in Korean elections or any other country's elections. But in this case, it was clearly about domestic politics, and it was about the criticism that President Jun is receiving around many different issues that we can discuss in a second. And I do think that if we look at the
turnout 67%, which is the highest in 32 years for a National Assembly election. I think this showed the passion that many Korean voters had and how they expressed this passion in giving a majority to the DP. And then, as you mentioned, there are other left-leaning parties as well that did quite well in this election. And that's why I lean more towards this second interpretation. There was more of both of punishing
the policies pursued by the president and also his leadership style which has been criticized by many Korean voters
Yeah, so I want to talk about the issues that were at play in this election, but let's just talk a little bit more about the math of the election. Again, if we look at these graphics we have up here, maybe you can explain to our listeners. So as we said, the Democratic Party now has 175 seats.
And then if we look at the math, like an important number, I guess, is it 185 or 186 or something like that, whatever is the number.
Well, you'll tell us why that's important. And then the ruling party didn't dip below 100 seats, right? It's at 108. So if we talk about the math here, why is this important? Like, why is it important that we think about these numbers? Oh, and it's important to mention this splinter party, the Rebuilding Korea Party, has 12 seats.
Right. And so how does this all matter in terms of the way the National Assembly works? Well, first of all, if there had been a two-thirds majority for the DP, so 200 seats of the 300, and some polls, actually, including exit polls, were predicting that they could get to this threshold, that would have meant that President Yu wouldn't have had veto power because the National Assembly would have been able to write veto power, so he would have been able to legislate
Without the president being able to do that much, there could have been an impeachment process. And obviously with this two-third majority, President Jun would have been in big trouble because this could have actually happened. So these two-thirds threshold, which also allows, by the way, for the constitution...
to be reviewed, right? So certain articles in the Constitution as well. So the DP would have had a free hand, really, for the next three years or even four years duration of this National Assembly, the four-year duration, to be able to legislate without the president being able to do much and his own position without being in doubt. Now, if we go down to 180, right, three-fifths,
of the 300 seats, this would have also allowed the DPI itself to have the initiative when it comes to legislation. Yes, this could have been vetoed by the president in this case, but those would have taken a political toll if you have the National Assembly constantly passing
new legislation and the president constantly vetoing it, right? So it has been an issue as well. And this is where it becomes interesting because as you were showing, right, we have the rebuilding Korea party led by the former
Minister of Justice under President Moon, who in his time in office, he went on trial. And this was when President Jung himself was the prosecutor, right? The prosecutor that was leading on the investigation. So he has this personal animosity towards Jung, the President Jung, and vice versa, right? You see he has 12 seats. So if you add the 12 seats that he has with the 175 that the...
has, you get over this 180 seat threshold. But that means that this gives him a lot of power because the D.P. will have to sit down and talk to him. And interestingly, recently, Che Guevara has actually said that he's willing to talk to other parties, that he's also willing to talk to the PPP, and he's willing to sit down and talk to President Jun. So we see now that
this being a small party that was only formed prior to this election, but you have a leader who is very popular among liberals in Korea, right? And he can conceivably try to be the next liberal candidate for the next presidential election that we'll have in three years, as opposed, for example, Lee Chae-myung, who is the leader of the DP. So the politics of it and how the numbers have turned out means that you have a smaller party that, again, didn't exist a few months ago,
that now Yoko Dariu can become kingmaker in the National Assembly. Yeah, yeah, so that's interesting. Well, again, so if we look at the math of this,
rather than the politics of it, you know, a true landslide or crushing defeat would have been if the Democratic Party had broken the 180 threshold or even the 200 threshold where they could have effectively completely sidelined the incumbent president and basically or even could have impeached him. Right. And they could even change the Constitution. The president would have no veto power whatsoever.
But what actually happened was in the end, the DP got more seats, but they didn't cross that threshold. And now you have this party. I mean, if there was a real winner in this election is really Chol Guk and this rebuilding Korea party who now the DP needs to get
Over that threshold in order to be able to govern in ways that would be not just obstructive to the administration but actually be able to Advance an agenda through legislation that they wouldn't have been they have not been able to do thus far in the in the National Assembly And then the other thing is if we look at the math is if the DP the Democratic Party with 175 seats is
if they were able to get the support of all the other non-PPP winners in the election, so it's the Rebuilding Korea Party, it's this Reform Party, it's this Progressive Party, if they pulled all of these together, would that take them over the... That would take them certainly over 180, but would that take them over the 200 mark or not? That gets them to 192. I see. And it has to be said that
the liberal parties here, but also conservative parties, right? Having said that, it doesn't mean that the conservative parties are going to side with the PPP because there were splinter parties from the PPP, right? So it becomes, I think, more complicated than saying, well, left-leaning parties, right-leaning parties, and they're going to be...
the left-leaning parties working together in the National Assembly. Not necessarily, because within the left-leaning bloc, there are different parties, right? And some of them, they don't really get along with the DP. And they came out actually as splinter parties from the DP. And same on the conservative side.
We have politicians who were not happy with the way the PPP was being run and they decided that they would run independently and they were able to be elected to the National Assembly. So I think that's something that we'll have to pay attention to. The divisions within the two camps are not only the 192
for all the parties that could be argued in the opposition and the 108 that you see for the for the PPP as you know even within the PPP there are many lawmakers elected now who are not happy with President June's leadership so so they will also be
basically looking at whether they can be the next presidential candidate for the party and that doesn't mean necessarily that they will support President Jun's policy agenda. But also in the DP, there are many lawmakers who would like to remove Lee Chae Myung, right? The leader of the party from his position so they can actually be the next presidential candidate or run the party
Until the next presidential election, I think we'll have to pay attention to this as well. Interesting. Okay, let's actually talk about some of the issues. This election was clearly about power in the legislature, but what were the issues at play that you think motivated voters either to vote for the DP or to vote for the ruling party? And also, there were a bunch of late-breaking issues
that were taking place, the doctor's strike, the whole question of releasing more real estate, previously restricted real estate for development, and some scandals. So maybe you could explain to our listeners what were some of these issues that were at play during the election. So I think we had some long-standing issues, meaning since President Jun was elected, he has been accused of
not running his office as a politician would do, which means talking to the opposition or even talking to lawmakers in his own party. He has been accused of following this prosecutorial approach based on his long standing and successful career really as a prosecutor.
So he's taking, according to his critics, this confrontational approach, not willing to sit down with the opposition, not willing to go to the National Assembly to try to garner enough votes for his signature policies when it comes to domestic policies. So it was this issue of style. There is also this issue of his wife,
having been accused of corruption. For example, there's this video that has made the rounds in Korean social media and also traditional media, where she's receiving a luxury handbag and she keeps it.
We know what has happened with the handbag, but obviously this is not legal under Korean legislation. She has also been accused of plagiarizing her PhD thesis, and she has been clear of this, but many people in the opposition and even in the conservative camp
think that this shouldn't have been the case. So there is the style, there's the corruption issues that have been raised by the opposition, but also, as you were saying, more recent issues. If we look at the doctor strikes, so for listeners and viewers who don't know, basically the government announced that it was going to increase the number of places in medical school, which I think Korea really needs, especially in rural areas, to have more doctors.
So the policy itself, in the beginning especially, was supported by a majority of voters in Korea. And actually, this helped to boost the approval rate of the president. But then it turned out that this hadn't been discussed
with doctor associations to begin with, with medical schools. This hasn't been discussed with the opposition. And even within the party, the PPP, the Conservative Party, there was that were surprised by this announcement, right? So again, this goes back to what Isha Dias mentioned, for many, President Juncker is not willing to sit down and discuss policy before it is actually announced, so to reach a consensus. So this turn against him, as we saw the strikes continuing for many weeks,
Really, we saw that non-emergency medical procedures were being cancelled or were being postponed. And we saw that there was no willingness to sit down and say, OK, well, I have announced 2,000 extra places in medical schools. Is this the right number? Do we need more or do we need less? How can we implement this? Because it has been announced that it will start already this year. So this fall, potentially, we could have two more thousand places.
future doctors being trained. But again, this hasn't been discussed, for example, with medical schools and the teachers who actually have to teach these doctors who would have to work more. So that became a big issue. There was also a visit to a market in which President Jung commented how cheap green onions were. And it turned out that it was a subsidized market, right? So it's not only in Korea. I mean,
In the UK, it's the same. You know, when politicians go to markets, to supermarkets, they don't necessarily know the prices because they don't do their own shopping in many cases, right? It's a bad move. It's a bad move. It's a bad move, right? And, of course, voters know. It doesn't say, well, the president doesn't know the prices.
the prices of staples that we all have to buy and we have noticed the increase in the inflation in Korea as well. So this also became an issue and real estate has been a long-standing issue. But again, this was announced by the government, new policies to try to lead to the building of more flats in the case of Korea, more housing provision. But again, it seemed that this hadn't been discussed
certainly with opposition, but even within the party. So again, this went back to the narrative that President Yoon doesn't want to sit down and talk to others, right? And sometimes that he's just stubborn. So regardless of whether you agree or disagree with this, it's clear that a majority of Korean voters think that this is
actually the case and this really hurt him in the run-up to the election and my extension the PPP also suffered. Yeah, yeah, the green onion one in particular was pretty bad. I mean, I'm not a political consultant by any means, but the one thing that's pretty clear is if you're the incumbent
right if you're the incumbent the opposition's always going to paint you as being elitist and and sort of in a bubble and so the worst thing you can do as an incumbent in a campaign is show up at a market because you clearly have not been doing any of your shopping yourself i remember long ago in u.s politics there was a case of an incumbent that went uh and was uh astonished at how the uh the cash the checkout cashier was using barcodes to scan
the price of goods. And he thought that that was just amazing where for every American, that was just a part of their life. So in the UK is a pint of milk was the price of a pint of milk in the UK. Yeah. Yeah. So there you go. Um, so, uh, so that's the advice that Ramon and I can give to future incumbent politicians. Don't visit a market on the campaign trail. Um, so I guess, you know, one serious question though is, is,
You know, as we know, South Korea has a single five-year term presidency. He's now finishing year two. He's got three more years to go. President Yun does. With this loss in this election, is he now effectively a lame duck? I don't think so. I don't think so. A, because when it comes to foreign policy, and we can discuss a bit more about this later on, really the president can take, he can call the shots, right? And he has been doing this, let's not forget, he was...
facing a minority in the National Assembly for the past two years. So this is not new to him. And he has been calling the shots when it comes to foreign policy. Now, when it comes to domestic politics, we'll have to see because President Junta has said that he's going to change his leadership style. He's going to make major changes in his cabinet. So he may decide that it is in his interest to actually sit down and talk to the opposition.
talk even to his own party to try to get some signature measures approved by the National Assembly on matters that relate to economic policy-making, to reform of the social welfare state in Korea when it comes to support for innovation. And I say this, and
Many don't agree with me, but many actually do, that when it comes to major issues, when it comes to economic policymaking, you don't see major difference between the liberals and the conservatives. Support for innovation, semiconductors, biotech, AI, 80-90% of
South Korean legislators agree that this is in the interest of Korea. They may disagree on what type of support you want to provide, how long the support should be for, how much money you may want to give. But they're arguing really about the smaller issues. They're not arguing about the big issue, which this is necessary.
If you look at the reform of the welfare state in Korea, which most Koreans agree is necessary, this has been pursued by both liberals and conservatives over the past 20 plus years. Now in Korea, one of the big debates is the low birth rate. What can we do to increase it, right? And you don't see major differences in terms of policy between liberals and conservatives. They think alike about what would be necessary to raise it.
Now, I think you would need to have more dialogue between the president and the opposition because otherwise opposition has no incentive to support the policies of the president, which in a sense, they probably would be their own policies if they were in power, right? But now, obviously, they're in the opposition. Now, if this doesn't change and we follow this approach of not really discussing with the opposition, even within their own party, what policies to pursue,
Not necessarily a lame duck, but clearly it would be very difficult for any policy measure that the president wishes to pursue to be approved by the National Assembly. So I think style is really going to matter here.
for the next three years. But the barely is the next year and a half, two years, because in one year and a half, two years, we'll be talking about the next presidential election. And then it's true that in the last year of the presidency, it's more difficult for the National Assembly to allow June or his party to score any points. Yeah, yeah. Let's talk a little bit about foreign policy then. I mean, they...
You mentioned that the Korean president has more leeway on foreign policy than domestic policy.
Your thoughts on how this will affect his policies towards the alliance, towards Japan, towards Europe, where South Korea is playing a big role in the war in Ukraine, these sorts of things. I mean, it is interesting to note that there are some newcomers who won seats in this national semi-election who are major foreign policy hands, like
Weesong Locke, right, who was former ambassador to Russia, formerly head of the South Korean side for the Six-Party Talks with North Korea, was I think also
National Security Advisor on the campaign for for E.J. Myung as well. So he now has a seat. Kim Gunn, who was the senior envoy for six party talks, foreign ministry diplomat, professional, also has garnered a seat. Park Jin, the former foreign minister, someone we know well, unfortunately lost in his bid to transition from
the UN government's top diplomat to returning to the National Assembly where he'd been a politician before. But what are your thoughts on sort of these issues, the alliance, Japan, and Europe? For me, a starting point is that if you look at domestic politics, but also where Korea is in the world, there are structural constraints to what any president can do. So you have 90% of Koreans support the alliance. I have a favorable view of the U.S.,
80% more or less have a negative view of China. This constrains decision-making for any president, really. But also if you look at this, when it comes to Korea's position in international affairs, there is a growing demand on Korea
to intervene, for example, in supporting Ukraine when it comes to racist invasion. To have a say in issues in the Middle East, for example, in the past, Korea could argue, well, there's nothing lost for our country there. Even if you look at this so-called G7+, right? The reason why Korea has been discussed as a potential member of an expanded G7 is because it gets along very well with the G7 members, increasingly well with the G7 members.
including Japan, it has to be said, right? So there are these structural issues that any Korean president has to pay attention to, this growing demand on Korea to deliver public goods way beyond the Korean peninsula. And I start with this because I do think that President Jun will continue the same policy because he personally believes in this policy.
Also, because one of the few advantages that I see with having a non-renewable five-year term in Korea, I think we'd rather to have something similar to the US, but we don't have it in Korea, is that the president can run his or her foreign policy without having to think about re-election. And this can lead to decisions that may be seen as unpopular, but in this case, President Jun doesn't have to think about, well, will I be voted in or out on the next election? That's
not an option for him. So I think he's going to double down on his policies. I think Korea is going to be asked, whoever wins the election here in the US, we have European Parliament elections, of course, in the European Union as well. There are elections taking place in countries such as the UK coming up as well over the next year.
Korea is going to be asked to contribute more, for example, to support Ukraine, as I mentioned before, to deter China or to be involved in discussions about how to deal with China, or if there's a whole North Korea debate in which Korea itself has reached out to the U.S., the U.N., but also the bilateral level to garner a group of countries that are going to allow Korea, the U.S., other countries to continue to implement the sanctions, monitor the sanctions on North Korea now that
We have seen what happened in the UN Security Council with Russia vetoing the extension of the 1718 panel, 1718 panel, right? So I do think that it will continue the same course. And I actually have to say, I think that if President Jun finds that this
very difficult or continues to be very difficult, maybe that's the exact term, to implement his preferred domestic politics, or that has been the case over the past two years, he will say, well, I'll just focus on foreign affairs because Korea is in demand. We see the number of state visits by the president to other countries in Europe, in the Middle East, obviously here in
in the US as well. You see foreign leaders visiting Korea. I mean, I come from Europe. We have seen the Dutch prime minister, Spanish prime minister visiting Korea. There's a presidential visit upcoming to Germany. There's a past one to the Netherlands. There was a past one to the UK as well. So Korea is in demand because of its business people, because of a strong defense industry, because of participation in
this G7 Plus framework that I mentioned previously. I don't see this changing. Yeah, yeah. I mean, it's interesting that, as you said, that
On domestic policy, there'll be a lot of wrangling that takes place on domestic policy, but in many ways they're arguing over the same issues, right? How to improve growth, how to create innovation, how to help small and medium-sized enterprises, how to improve and increase full employment.
and not just part-time jobs, you know, there are many systems. But on foreign policy, where I think you're right, Yun will basically continue on the path that he's on because it's a path that he created when he was already in the minority and was already unpopular, so he's just going to continue because he believes in it, as you said. But there could be very big differences on foreign policy. So if, for example, the D.P.,
Garner's, you know, gets to 180 where they can then fast track bills and things or even if they got to 200 or over 200, they could try to push a completely different foreign policy, right? During the campaign, Lee Jae-myung and some other people, you know, did not approve of the policy on Japan.
actually call for neutrality on Ukraine, right? And obviously they have big differences on policy towards North Korea. So there could be very big differences that would have been impacted in terms of foreign policy by the results of this election. So it's an interesting point. I mean, I've been criticized for making the point that I'm about to make. I think someone like Ismail Akra, for example, that as you mentioned, he is now
in the National Assembly and it's true he was the lead foreign policy national security policy advisor to Itamir when he was candidate, right?
He's center-left. He's center-center, as some would say, actually, right? And I'm sure you've talked to him. You met him many times. Of course, I know you have. I've been able to meet with him and discuss foreign policy with him. And he's someone that you wouldn't be surprised if he served in a conservative administration, right? And for me, that's an interesting thing. Same thing with Kim Gan. I mean, Kim Gan, yes, center-right, but...
if he served in a center-left administration, he wouldn't necessarily be out of place there. Yes, it's true. There are other National Assembly members that have been elected that have more leftist views, right? The more traditional leftist view of we're brothers with North Korea and the U.S. is to blame, clearly, right? So there's a debate there. So I would stick with a pinch of salt or a grain of salt, really, what is said in a campaign, right? When you're trying to undermine the policy of the opposition. Yeah.
I would like to see if a liberal president comes to office, whether they would be able to follow this policy. And I honestly have doubts, some other reasons, because of the constraints
that I mentioned. From the public. From the public. I mean, if you want to run a policy that undermines the alliance and becomes closer to China, well, you have 80, 90% of the population that would say, well, we don't necessarily like this. And I think that in a democracy that should matter, and personally I think to an extent it matters. But
There are many, probably a majority, that would agree with you instead of me. And they would say, well, there could be a big change if the liberals had had this super majority, for example, that they didn't achieve. And something very interesting we did at my chair back in Brussels in the run-up to the campaign, for the first time ever, we actually asked the candidates about the policy towards Europe, right? The two campaigns, right? President Jun, before he became president,
each of them as well. And we asked them about EU, NATO, Europe, right? And their answers were fairly similar. We have this online, actually. If anyone's interested, they can go to our website. It was like, whoa, what's the difference here between both of them? And the answers came from the foreign policy teams, obviously. Back then, the candidates wouldn't sit down and answer our questions, but the foreign policy teams. And that's what I find interesting, that
I doubt that a Korean president can have a free reign in foreign policy, I could be the case in the past. North Korea is a different matter, of course, right? North Korea, it would be different, but then it has to be said, I mean, dealing with the current North Korea, how much leeway do you have to pursue a policy of engagement like the one we saw, not even under Moon, but the one we saw, for example, in 2000 and, you know, in the first two liberal administrations, right, in which you clearly saw a pro-engagement policy, right?
might be more difficult today than it was in the past really because of north korea's stance yeah right right because i mean they may want to pursue it but because of north korea's stance these days uh when they're not willing to talk to anyone it seems except china and russia it might be very it might be very difficult okay let me can um can we uh as a final thing just talk about some of the notable um um
winners and losers in the race and sort of just get your thoughts. So, you know, some of the big political heavyweights that won, obviously, Lee Jae-myung, right, former candidate. Ahn Cheol-soo won. Chu Mi-ae, Lee Jun-suk, right? So we have political heavyweights from both the left and the right.
with big wins. And then also the return of Na Kyung-won, right? Na Kyung-won is back now after having won her race. So really on both sides, political heavyweights are back or reelected or returning
which I think, you know, on the DP side, it's very clear who wants to run next time. But it really is an open field, right, on the conservative side because one of the results of this election is that the leader of the party, the so-called -- I mean, he was sort of the fair-haired child, you know, the anointed one who was likely to succeed has had to resign because of the loss. So it's kind of an open field now, and you have all these other people who are there.
Foreign Prime Minister Lee Na-kyun lost, right? Park Jin, as we said, lost. And then Tae Yong-ho also, the famous sort of North Korean escapee turned South Korean politician, also lost.
So any thoughts on, first on that group, any thoughts on those? I mean, I think the election really reinforces Itemian's position, as we said, because let's not forget
Many within his party don't want him to be the next president of Caldina. And they even blame him for the very narrow victory that President Jun had in the last election. They said, we have had a more center-left candidate, or less controversial candidate, right, from his time as governor of Conguido, right, that they would have won because the difference was so small. But now he can say, I delivered. And...
Yes, he's in legal trouble. We see where it is in two, three years' time, his legal troubles, right? But he has a strong hand saying, well, I delivered. I only lost the election, the past election by a very small margin. So I do deserve to run for president.
I would like to see someone like Choe Woo, for example, say, I'm going to try the leadership of the DP. Right? He doesn't have to. He has his own party. But as we know in Korea, yes, the parties change their names. We have the two big parties, liberal, conservative, and they are the ones that will run in candidates that have a strong possibility of being the next president. So let's see where he is. Again, despite his legal troubles, but even if he has a two-year prison sentence, he
that he has to serve, this still would mean that he would be in time to run for the leadership of the party next time around. I think on the conservative side, it is an open field. It has to be said. Because as you said, we thought we have a clear candidate, the leader of the PPP, and he's gone.
And now we have big personalities who are going to be, maybe not the next year, but clearly in a year and a half or so, we are going to start to see who are the ones that have a strong possibility of becoming the next president. I think we'll see many of them interested in running against Jun, not only against the opposition. And this is not new in Korea. When Park Geun-hye, for example,
became president after Iman Bak, two conservative presidents from the same party. But Pak, during her campaign, she was running really against Iman Bak as much as she was running against the liberals. And I wouldn't be surprised if we see the same on the conservative side. Say, look, yes, I'm from the same party as President Jun, but I'm from another wing of the party. So I want to see how different heavyweights position themselves
But as I said, I think it's a bit early at this point in time. We'll see who becomes the next leader of the PPP. We'll see whether there is a challenge for the leadership of the DPI. I still think there will be a challenge for the leadership of the DPI, especially if these legal troubles that Itaem Young is facing become more serious. For example, he's prosecuted and has to go on trial.
And I would be surprised if we know over the next year who are going to be the candidates. I think we'll get to it in one year and a half, two years, and then we'll have a clearer picture. What I do think we'll see is that there will be many candidates on the conservative side. Five, six, seven candidates that potentially...
could be the next leader of the party and therefore run, the next candidate that runs for election, the next presidential election. As I said, I want to see on the liberal side where it's actually people who are outside of the DP, whether they'll remain outside, starting with Cheguk, or they go into the DP because they don't have a bigger chance of becoming president if they're actually part of one of the mainstream parties. Yeah, yeah.
And so just to finish one, I think it's,
I mean, unfortunately, it's worth noting that what we see going forward is that, look, as I said, right now the support for after this election, right after this election, support for the DP is at 37%, support for the PPP basically at 34%. If you factor in a margin of error there, then you're not really talking about much of a difference. And so that means political polarization will probably deepen going forward.
I mean, the conservatives will want to try to take down both Lee Jae-min and Cho Guk on corruption charges. The opposition will go after the president's wife. Not a pretty picture, I think, going forward. But then the other thing that's, I guess, on the positive side to say is that these are fiercely fought elections, fiercely fought competitions. The last presidential election was a razor-thin victory.
But is it true that for the most part South Korean politicians, consultants, voters themselves, they don't question the system, right? They don't question the process. You know, there's always concerns about misinformation, disinformation from outside actors and others. But overall, in this election, in the end, were there questions about the process, about the electoral system or anything like that?
That's an excellent question to raise because the answer is no. I mean, you see an acceptance of the system, right? And across the board, really, kind of just in the losing side, in this case, the Conservative Party as a whole, the PPP, they do accept the verdict from the voters. And I think that matters because that's not necessarily the case
I don't know what you're talking about. Yeah, yeah. It's a home ground, right? But even in Europe now, you see such as some questioning in some countries in Central Eastern Europe, you know, are these clean elections...
or not, right? And it is concerning. And you see this in Korea, which is good to see that the losing parties have this. Even as you said in the last presidential election, we're talking a racial theme margin less than 1%. But you didn't see, for example, in this case, the DP asking for a recount of the votes or saying, oh, this is due to Russian interference or North Korean interference or Chinese interference.
in the electoral process that led to the victory of the PPP and President Jun. And I think that matters that Koreans continue to accept this. And I don't think polarization is going away. I think, as you were saying, it's one third of the voters
on the conservative side one third on the liberal side and one third we don't know right or they have a preference for a smaller parties or or they are more towards the center they don't particularly support one or the other party so it's not only the two big movements right or parties in korea it's also about the one third that don't feel represented by any of these two
But they don't question the system, right? They don't say, well, why do the big two have to have the largest share of the vote, right? If one third is voting for other parties or abstaining. That's how the system works and they do accept it. And I think that matters among other things because we have talked a lot in the past about Korea as an economic model for many developing countries. But now increasingly it is seen as a political model for countries that are suffering
from democratic backsliding, or even countries in which the people would like to transition
to a full democracy, which Korea is, right? And the electoral process, the integrity of the electoral process is key to this. And Korea, you could argue, is a model when it comes to this integrity. Yeah. And apropos that, they just hosted the Democracy Summit last month in Seoul. So anyway, Ramon, thank you so much for being on the show again and really a great discussion about South Korea's National Assembly election results.
So again, that was Ramon Pacheco-Pardo, professor at King's College and the European Union career chair joining us here at CSIS. Thank you all for watching and listening to the program. And we look forward to seeing you on the next episode of The Impossible State. If you have a question for one of our experts about The Impossible State, email us at impossiblestate at csis.org.
If you want to dive deeper into the issues surrounding North Korea, check out Beyond Parallel. That's our micro website that's dedicated to bringing a better understanding of the Korean peninsula. You can find it at beyondparallel.csis.org. And don't forget to leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. That's so more listeners can find us. It's very helpful. We're now also streaming on Spotify, so you can find us there too, where you find all your music. How cool is that?
And don't forget to subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. This is The Impossible State.