Home > Opinion > Columns

Rebuilding the middle ground

Published: 11 Feb. 2026, 00:01

Lee Jae-seung

The author is a professor of international studies at Korea University and head of the Ilmin International Relations Institute.

The temperature of politics in Korea remains high. As elections approach, voices grow louder and rhetoric becomes harsher. Yet, many citizens are emotionally withdrawing. Anger and ridicule are abundant, but trust is rapidly eroding. The most important signal in Korea’s democracy today is not polarization itself, but the quiet disappearance of the space that once held the system together. The political middle ground is collapsing.

Police buses form a barrier separating rival rallies for and against the impeachment of former President Yoon Suk Yeol near Gwanghwamun in central Seoul on March 15, 2025. Demonstrators supporting impeachment gather on the left, while those opposing it assemble on the right. [JANG JIN-YOUNG]

The middle ground is not the same as the one “centrists” have described in opinion polls. It is not a hesitant group unsure which party to support, nor a position that criticizes both sides on every issue. Rather, it is a buffer that keeps politics operating within rules and procedures even when conflict intensifies. Democracy does not function on majority rule alone. It requires a sphere of provisional agreement, however incomplete, that sustains collective decisions. The middle ground is where such institutional consensus accumulates.

Put simply, the middle ground already exists in everyday life. These are people who go to work each day, raise children and try to keep pace with technological change. They worry that sudden policy shifts may undermine their efforts despite hard work. They are not easily stirred by political slogans, but they are highly sensitive to instability. What they seek is not ideological victory but a minimum level of predictability that allows them to plan their lives.

The relatively high levels of life satisfaction in Nordic countries reflect not only democratic maturity but also institutionalized middle ground politics. Compromise is understood not as a moral failure but as a governing skill. Even when politics slows to negotiate and adjust, citizens trust that the process will remain within institutional boundaries. Greater predictability gives individuals a stronger sense of stability.

Korea’s politics is increasingly unable to sustain this space. Political language has become moralized at high speed, and opponents are framed not as rivals but as fundamentally wrong actors who must be corrected. Compromise is treated as betrayal, while deliberation and restraint are dismissed as weakness. Policy debates are judged less by institutional design or effectiveness than by who proposed them. Practical capacity and policy expertise are pushed aside.

The problem is not that politics has lost morality, but that it has monopolized moral language while abandoning institutional reasoning. The disappearance of the middle ground reflects a shift in political operation from design and adjustment toward mobilization and consolidation. Mobilization politics demands clear slogans and immediate judgment. Those who do not respond quickly, who resist simple narratives of good and evil, are marginalized.

As this space shrinks, information and institutions become distorted. Complex policies and data are reduced to simple frames, and institutions are used less to solve problems than to reinforce partisan legitimacy. Media and social platforms operate in structures that amplify conflict. Under such conditions, it becomes increasingly difficult for individuals to make rational long-term decisions about their lives.

The collapse of the middle ground often leads to silence and avoidance. This silence is not apathy. Many who withdraw feel that politics no longer provides the predictability needed for personal planning. When each institutional shift forces households to recalculate loans, pensions or education plans, citizens who once supported social stability respond not with activism but with caution.

Rallies for and against the impeachment of former President Yoon Suk Yeol are being held in the Gwanghwamun area of Jongno District, central Seoul, on April 5, 2025. [NEWS1]

Ironically, some of the most important advances in Korea’s democracy occurred when this middle ground stepped forward. During democratization and at other critical moments, these citizens briefly moved to the political center, shifted the balance and then returned to their daily lives. They were not always visible, but they proved decisive when direction mattered.

The task now is to move this middle ground from the periphery back to the center of politics. Rebuilding it does not mean choosing moderation in every case, eliminating anger or concealing conflict. It means restoring a predictable society in which individuals can pursue their work, adapt to change and make stable life plans.

The goal is not a specific political line but a reset in how the system functions. When laws and institutions remain stable, policy decisions accumulate and basic continuity survives political transitions, economic, diplomatic, welfare and industrial policies become more predictable. What Korea needs is not greater outrage but a stronger middle ground. The political force capable of rebuilding it will shape the next stage of governance.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.