South Koreans vote to elect new leader following Yoon’s ouster over martial law
South Koreans went to the polls on Tuesday in what may come to be seen as one of the most pivotal elections in the nation’s modern democratic history.
The June 3 vote was called after the dramatic downfall of former President Yoon Suk Yeol, who was impeached and removed from office earlier this spring for attempting to invoke martial law in December 2024.
Against a backdrop of economic malaise, diplomatic strain and a public weary of political dysfunction, the election became a test not only of leadership but of institutional resilience.
Voters appeared engaged despite a dispiriting campaign. Turnout in advanced voting reached 34.74 percent — the second highest since the introduction of early voting in 2014 — suggesting a public alert to the stakes. Yet the process itself was marred by logistical lapses. The National Election Commission came under fire for mismanagement, with critics warning that such failures could undermine procedural legitimacy at a moment when public trust is already fraying.
The frontrunner heading into the Election Day was Lee Jae-myung of the liberal Democratic Party of Korea, a sharp-elbowed populist who has, in recent months, sought to soften his image and reposition himself as a pragmatist.
A former governor and one-time presidential contender who narrowly lost to Yoon in 2022, Lee returned to the national stage promising diplomatic realism and a business-friendly policy approach. His principal rival, Kim Moon-soo of the conservative People Power Party, is a former labor activist turned hard-right loyalist who remained closely aligned with the disgraced Yoon.
As of press time, the final result had yet to be declared. But barring a late upset, Lee’s sustained advantage in polls suggested he was on track to win.
If there was a decisive loser in this campaign, it was the quality of public discourse. Policy debate was scarce. Personal invective, theatrical gestures and hastily assembled populist pledges dominated the three televised debates. Substance took a back seat to spectacle.
Both major candidates offered sweeping economic proposals, including trillion-won supplementary budgets and emergency task forces to stimulate growth. The divergence lay more in emphasis than in content: Lee cast himself as a reformer intent on resetting the terms between capital and labor; Kim struck a more orthodox note, emphasizing security and traditional conservative themes.
The Democratic Party’s legislative tactics added further volatility. In early May, the party pushed through amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act and the Public Official Election Act — changes that could delay criminal trials for sitting presidents and redefine legal boundaries for campaign statements. Critics called the move an effort to shield Lee from ongoing investigations. The perception that institutional rules were being bent to serve political ends hung heavily over the race.
Whoever assumes office will inherit a formidable to-do list. The economy is sputtering under the weight of falling exports, sluggish domestic spending and rising fiscal burdens. US President Donald Trump has imposed heavy tariffs on Korean goods and raised doubts about the durability of the security alliance. North Korea’s weapons program continues apace, while maritime tensions with China in the West Sea remain unresolved. Domestically, political polarization runs deep, exacerbated by a campaign that stoked division rather than dialogue.
This election was never just about choosing a new head of state. It was about reaffirming democratic norms in the wake of a constitutional crisis. The damage wrought by Yoon’s overreach cannot be allowed to define the country's political future. The incoming president must not only claim a mandate but embody it by restoring public trust, re-engaging internationally and showing restraint in the exercise of power. Losing candidates, too, bear a responsibility: to respect the outcome and resist the temptation to turn disappointment into obstruction.
Democracy is sustained not merely by ballots but by norms, responsibility and restraint. South Korea has faced darker chapters and emerged stronger. Let this be such a moment: a turn from rupture to repair, from disarray to accountability. The people have spoken. Now the burden of democracy shifts to those they have chosen to lead.
koreadherald@heradcorp.com
