South Korean Elections: Critics Decry Lack of Candidate Debates, Urge More Policy Competition

As the official campaign period for the 9th National Simultaneous Local Elections and National Assembly by-elections commences, a troubling trend has emerged: the scarcity of substantive debates between candidates. While the law mandates election debates, many regions are seeing only the bare minimum, with some candidates outright refusing to participate in any additional discussions beyond the single legally required event. This reluctance, particularly among leading candidates, raises serious concerns about the integrity of the electoral process and the public's access to crucial information.

“

Debate refusal is not in line with the purpose of 'policy competition' and infringes upon the voters' right to know.

The absence of robust debate is particularly stark in key electoral battlegrounds. In Seoul, for instance, the mayoral election is set to feature only one legally mandated debate, a significant departure from previous elections where multiple debates were standard. This single event is scheduled late at night, further limiting its impact. Similar patterns are observed in other major cities, where candidates are opting for isolated appearances rather than engaging in direct, head-to-head policy contests. This approach, often framed as a desire to avoid 'squabbling' or 'wasting time,' appears more like a strategic maneuver to sidestep potential risks and scrutiny.

“

Candidates should actively participate in debates now.

This deliberate avoidance of open debate directly contravenes the spirit of 'policy elections' that candidates often espouse. It deprives voters of the opportunity to thoroughly assess candidates' platforms, compare their qualifications, and understand their proposed solutions to pressing issues. The Korean press, including ourselves at Hankyoreh, must continue to advocate for greater transparency and accountability in electoral campaigns. Candidates must be urged to step forward, engage in meaningful dialogue, and allow voters to make informed decisions based on genuine policy competition, not strategic avoidance.

“

There is no time to squabble.