Kim Min-seok, a former prime minister, was elected leader of the ruling Democratic Party at its national convention on the 17th. Kim fell short of a majority in the first round of vote counting but defeated his rivals — former leader Jung Chung-rae and Rep. Song Young-gil — through a ranked-choice runoff.
In his acceptance speech, Kim pledged what he called "a creative horizontal relationship of full cooperation that supports the president and the government." He said he would "debate, offer candid advice, serve as a shield and act as a channel for public sentiment" for the success of the Lee Jae-myung administration. He went on to promise "a party that takes responsibility for people's lives," laying out a vision of livelihood politics focused on everyday economic life, inclusive coalition-building politics, and competent politics.
Inside and outside the ruling party, many view this convention as having ended after nothing but mudslinging and factional attacks aimed at damaging one another. During the primary, Kim and Song, both members of the pro-Lee faction, did not hesitate to target Jung — raising suspicions of a "secret three-way Shincheonji alliance" and using language such as calling him a "traitor." Jung's camp, for its part, sought to brand Kim as a "politician of betrayal" by dredging up his past defection from the party. Some analyses go so far as to warn that the lingering bad blood from the convention could become a spark for division, escalating into a party split ahead of the 2028 general election. That Kim failed to clinch victory in the first round of counting despite the full backing of the pro-Lee faction is also cited as a variable in whether he can exercise leadership over the pro-Jung camp going forward.
The new ruling party leadership must now settle the internal strife, establish a sound and horizontal relationship between the party and the presidential office, and enhance the stability of state affairs. It must also fulfill the responsibilities of a governing party through a vision for livelihoods and the economy that serves the national interest and the public. In particular, it should sincerely heed public opinion on major state affairs, deliberate with the opposition, and adjust its policy course toward a balanced and pragmatic direction, starting with policy lines. If it ignores the opposition and pushes through contentious legislation tilted toward hardline supporters, as it has done before, it could face a serious leadership crisis. It should therefore reconsider its plan to force through a bill (an amendment to the National Assembly Act) that would shorten the processing period for fast-track items, which could stir controversy over sidelining the opposition. There is also a need to thoroughly overhaul the government's real estate tax bills, which have drawn public anger, and to revise business-restricting laws such as the so-called Yellow Envelope Act and the amended Commercial Act in an investment-friendly direction. Practicing pragmatic policies in this way — and speaking up when the government strays from public sentiment while seeking a centrist path — is the shortcut to reigniting the momentum of state affairs.
