When expectations turned to disappointment: 500 days

Kang Won-taek

The author is a professor emeritus of political science and international relations at Seoul National University.

Early last week, a journalist called asking me to assess President Lee Jae Myung's first 500 days in office. I declined, wondering what significance the milestone held. Afterward, however, I realized that 500 days represented roughly a quarter of his term. Enough time had passed for the administration to overcome initial difficulties, establish a governing framework and begin delivering tangible policy results. Yet, to be frank, I still could not shake the feeling that the administration lacked stability and a clear sense of direction.

Housing policies that Lee repeatedly emphasized have left people struggling not only to buy homes but even to secure jeonse (a lump-sum deposit). The stock market, previously celebrated by the government and ruling party, has recently plunged. Foreign and security policies, once favorably received, are also faltering. Relations with Washington show serious strains beyond ordinary policy disagreements. Meanwhile, the government's proposal to provide medical equipment to North Korea despite missile launches, land mine provocations and insulting statements has drawn criticism for disregarding public sentiment and security realities. Lee's approval rating, initially approaching 70 percent, now remains stuck in the 30 percent range after those 500 days.

What went wrong? One frequently cited problem is Lee's tendency to involve himself personally in virtually every matter. His unexpected proposal for a comprehensive farmland investigation illustrated this approach. Was the decision based on careful departmental review and prior coordination regarding its urgency and necessity? Many were left wondering. Presidential judgments seemingly becoming government policy overnight inevitably undermine confidence. Citizens care less about how hard a president works or how many matters he handles personally than whether policies are timely, effective and systematically implemented.

Repeated controversies over appointments have further weakened confidence. Lee appears to draw from a remarkably narrow circle. Effective governance requires experienced specialists and people willing to offer different perspectives. Yet his appointments suggest excessive reliance on familiar associates. Personal trust is understandable, even inevitable, but it should not restrict the government's talent pool or the range of expertise and judgment available to the president.

The president's leadership style also lacks the gravitas expected of his office. Debate over constitutional amendments permitting a second presidential term began early in his administration, prolonging political controversy over a proposal with little prospect of realization. His ambiguous remarks about North Korean land mines and casual expressions such as "jwa-ahage," a pun suggesting "left-wing elegance," also raised questions about presidential judgment. Such remarks convey not approachability but insufficient restraint and stability. A president's words signal the direction of national policy, not merely personal opinions. They demand particular care.

Lee has emphasized communication through social media and publicly broadcast Cabinet meetings. Yet excessive reliance on platforms encouraging one-sided assertions and reinforcing supporters' views risks increasing uncertainty. Cabinet broadcasts have highlighted the president's instructions and reprimands rather than substantive deliberation among ministers responsible for governing. As these problems accumulate, the optimism that accompanied Lee's inauguration has gradually given way to a growing sense of disappointment.

Lee has consistently emphasized pragmatism since taking office. But how pragmatic has his administration actually been? Pragmatic politics begins with solving problems. Instead, the government often appears more concerned with determining who is at fault and who caused a problem. Ideological and partisan considerations frequently seem to take precedence over practical solutions.

After 500 days, the administration needs a fundamental change in governing methods. Institutions and organizations must perform their proper roles rather than merely implement presidential decisions. Lee should broaden his recruitment pool and listen to dissenting opinions, including uncomfortable criticism. Above all, the administration must recognize the seriousness of its circumstances. Perhaps a seemingly weak opposition has encouraged complacency, or perhaps advisers surrounding the president are too willing to agree with him. Whatever the explanation, Lee and the ruling establishment appear insufficiently alarmed by the challenges confronting them.

Another 500 days will bring a politically consequential moment, with the next general election approaching. If the first 500 days were a period for watching the new administration and assessing its promise and potential, the next 500 will be a test of its performance and accountability. The assessment at the 1,000-day mark will be considerably more demanding and severe. That is precisely why the president must look back critically, even painfully, on the past 500 days, rather than simply move on, for the sake of better governance.