Why did young Koreans gather in the park in anger?

Shin June-bong

The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo. 

In ordinary circumstances, local elections should be a celebration of democracy. Given Korea's political realities, that may have been an unrealistic expectation, but few imagined the latest local elections would instead deepen public anger. Describing the election as a case of "comprehensive failure" hardly seems sufficient.

Many observers have been struck by the intensity of political engagement among people in their 20s and 30s, a generation often regarded as politically detached. During his farewell lecture on June 16, Kang Won-taek, a professor of political science at Seoul National University, remarked that it was the first time he had witnessed such a large-scale political mobilization by young adults.

Excessive polarization is certainly unhealthy, but public interest in politics remains indispensable in a democracy. Lee Jin-woo, professor emeritus at Pohang University of Science and Technology, argued that if students had not possessed such a strong sense of fairness and indignation, the ruling and opposition parties might not have reached agreement so quickly on reforms that would effectively dismantle and rebuild the National Election Commission. Politicians, too, were likely startled by the anger displayed by younger voters.

That naturally raises another question: What exactly were they angry about?

Among the young protesters who gathered at Seoul's Olympic Park to denounce the troubled election, many cited concerns about electoral fairness. Yet accurately diagnosing a problem is essential before prescribing a remedy. The nationwide shortage of ballot papers appears to have been an unprecedented administrative failure caused by inadequate election management. If so, can it truly be equated with deliberate unfairness?

The Korean word gongjeong, commonly translated as "fairness," literally means being impartial and just. Intuitively, it suggests the absence of bias and often implies that someone acted with improper intent. In communitarian political philosophy, which places collective welfare above individual liberty, fairness is closely intertwined with justice. A just society not only guarantees equal opportunities but also gives priority to what philosopher John Rawls called "the least advantaged" when distributing social benefits. Rawls laid the foundation for this idea in his 1958 essay "Justice as Fairness."

Rawls, however, was not primarily concerned with distributive outcomes. Rather, he emphasized procedural justice achieved through social consensus. One might argue that because problems occurred during the voting process, procedural fairness was violated. Yet this interpretation does not fully align with the philosophical meaning Rawls intended.

Kwak Jun-hyeok, a professor at Sun Yat-sen University in China and editor of Routledge's "East Asian Political Thought" series, responded by email that Rawls's concept of procedural fairness does not refer to flaws in administrative procedures or election management. Instead, he argued, the recent election controversy should be understood as a failure of professional ethics, public accountability and institutional self-discipline within state agencies.

Professor emeritus Lee Jin-woo, explored a related issue in his 2021 book "Unfair Society," which sought to explain why younger Koreans possess a different understanding of fairness than older generations. In an interview, he observed that many young people now interpret an unusually wide range of issues through the lens of fairness. Even matters that previous generations would not regard as fairness issues quickly become framed in those terms, reflecting an extraordinary level of sensitivity.

He pointed to the 2020 Incheon International Airport Corporation controversy as an example. After then-President Moon Jae-in endorsed converting roughly 1,900 contract workers into permanent employees, many young job seekers protested. From the perspective of distributive justice, the policy could be defended as improving the welfare of disadvantaged workers. Others criticized it as violating procedural justice. Most striking, however, was the outrage of students and job seekers who believed years of preparation had been devalued. Their reaction reflected a deeply rooted commitment to meritocracy.

According to Lee, many young Koreans can accept someone earning exceptional rewards through talent and effort. They may envy graduates who secure coveted positions at Samsung Electronics or SK hynix, but they do not necessarily resent them. What they cannot tolerate is even a slight violation of the rules governing competition.

A professor at a private university offered a similar interpretation. Elections are, in one sense, another form of competitive game. For a generation shaped by meritocratic values, a shortage of ballot papers represented not merely administrative incompetence but a breakdown of the rules that make the competition legitimate.

Ironically, in a society increasingly governed by uncompromising meritocracy, there seems to be less room for broader discussions of justice and fairness themselves. If matters have reached this point, the responsibility lies not with the younger generation but with the adults who shaped the system.