How should we respond to conspiracy theories in the public square?

Lee Hyun-sang

The author is a columnist at the JoongAng Ilbo. 

Last Friday, I visited the plaza outside the handball arena at Seoul Olympic Park, where protesters have continued demonstrating over the mishandling of the June 3 local elections. There, allegations of election fraud had found fertile ground amid legitimate public anger over voting irregularities.

The voices of young people who initially gathered to protest the violation of their voting rights were gradually being drowned out by conspiracy theories and political slogans. On a notice board, appeals urging participants to "focus on the infringement of voting rights" and "maintain order" stood alongside signs proclaiming that "Yoon Suk Yeol sacrificed himself for the nation" and "The Chinese Communist Party must stop interfering in our elections." Someone handed me a business card that turned out to be a leaflet from far-right Pastor Jeon Kwang-hoon inviting people to attend an Aug. 15 "National Resistance Rally."

Although the square has increasingly been tainted by the actions of far-right participants, the state has remained conspicuously absent. Police stood by even when protesters searched the bags of youth athletes and assaulted reporters. A sports organization's attempt to retrieve essential equipment was blocked by a single protester, while authorities failed to intervene. In that square, the presence of the state was nowhere to be found.

Personally, I consider election-fraud conspiracy theories baseless. Yet the scene demonstrated the limits of simply dismissing or ridiculing those who believe them. Their convictions are too deeply rooted to be resolved by facts or logic alone. The only lasting solution is to reduce the conditions in which conspiracy theories can flourish through institutional and technological reform.

The first institution that requires fundamental reform is the National Election Commission. Sheltered by its constitutional independence, the commission has long resisted meaningful outside oversight and verification, a culture that ultimately contributed to the recent ballot shortage. Reform should therefore focus not on undermining its independence but on increasing transparency. Placing the commission directly under the control of either the National Assembly or the executive branch would simply create new political controversies. A more practical approach would be to establish an independent external oversight body composed of representatives from political parties, academia and cybersecurity experts.

Safeguards should also be strengthened at every stage where suspicion could arise, even if some measures appear excessive. Existing procedures, including public observation of advance-voting ballot transportation, GPS tracking of transport vehicles and manual verification of all ballots on counting day, should be made far more visible to ordinary voters. Real-time tracking of ballot transport routes could be made publicly accessible, while manual ballot counting should be livestreamed so any citizen can observe the process.

The vote-counting software should likewise undergo independent verification before election day. Digital fingerprint technology could then confirm that the software used during the election is identical to the version that was previously certified. Korea should also consider introducing post-election risk-limiting audits by randomly selecting polling districts and recounting ballots by hand.

The essential goal is to expand verification procedures that voters can personally observe. Achieving that objective may require introducing more analog elements into an otherwise digital process. At first glance, that may appear contradictory for a country renowned for its technological sophistication. Yet when it comes to elections, which form the foundation of democracy, public confidence matters more than administrative efficiency.

The recent ballot shortage illustrated how an excessive focus on efficiency can ultimately impose even greater social costs. No matter how advanced an election system may be, if voters do not trust it, it becomes a source of division rather than legitimacy. Waiting a few more hours for election results is a small price to pay if the process becomes transparent enough for everyone to accept. The principle is similar to cybersecurity, where stronger protection often requires users to accept greater inconvenience. Democracy demands the same tradeoff.

Conspiracy theories are unlikely to disappear entirely, regardless of the measures adopted. The real challenge is to reduce the conditions that allow them to thrive. Simply telling citizens to trust the system is no longer enough. The system itself must demonstrate that even if someone attempted to manipulate an election, ordinary citizens would be able to detect it first. In the end, procedural transparency matters more than technical perfection. Only when voters can see the process for themselves will they be willing to accept the result.