The leaders of South Korea's two main parties opened a rare path toward political cooperation at their first meeting on the 24th. Kim Min-seok, chairman of the ruling Democratic Party of Korea, and Chang Dong-hyeok, chairman of the main opposition People Power Party, held the first one-on-one meeting between the two parties' leaders in two years, since a September 2024 meeting between then-Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung and then-People Power Party leader Han Dong-hoon. When Kim said he wanted "to build a bridge for dialogue that is never severed, meeting anytime and even by phone," Chang responded that he "agreed with much of that." The two pledged cooperation, calling not just for regular meetings but for frequent communication. The two leaders clasped hands and smiled broadly. This can only be welcome news for a public weary of extreme, life-or-death partisan conflict. It marks a step forward compared with former Democratic Party leader Jung Chung-rae, who refused to meet the opposition leader at all, saying "you shake hands with people."
A handshake and pleasantries at a first introductory meeting will not dissolve years of accumulated distrust in a single stroke. In fact, the two showed sharp differences that day on recent issues, including the controversy over the written nomination of Supreme Court justice candidates, how the future response fund should be used, and housing policy. Chang in particular delivered pointed criticism of the Democratic Party's demands, including that Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae voluntarily step down, invoking judicial independence and the defense of the rule of law.
Yet there are glimpses, however faint, of a chance to restore politics through dialogue and compromise. Above all, it is a positive sign that the two leaders exchanged views directly on the issues and pledged to communicate. Chang said he "welcomed" Kim's proposal of revisions to the government's tax reform plan. Chang also proposed on the future response fund that the two sides "discuss a plan to spend 50% of additional tax revenue on the middle class, low- and middle-income households, and young adults." Kim responded that he "fully agreed," adding that "it would be good to go through a public debate."
What matters is from here on. The first test comes at the National Assembly's plenary session on the 26th of this month. Above all, the parties should show they can swiftly reach agreement on livelihood legislation, starting with the supply of housing to stabilize housing for low- and middle-income households. Building on that, they must narrow their differences one by one on contentious matters as well, such as preparing supplementary measures for the revised Criminal Procedure Act that strips the prosecution of its investigative powers. We hope this meeting between the two party leaders proves not a one-off event but a turning point toward a politics of cooperation.
