[Insight & Opinion] Let’s Evaluate the Next Government by Standards, Not Emotions

Repeating Patterns of "Blind Support" in Politics
Establishing Clear Benchmarks First
Creating a New Culture of Government Evaluation

In two months, South Korea will embark on another national governance experiment with a new president. This election marks a change following the major event of the previous president’s impeachment, occurring amid political turmoil and social fatigue. Expectations for the new leader are high, but distrust and caution will coexist as well.

The problem is that in such emotionally charged circumstances, voters tend to lose their judgment, making it easy for Korea’s chronic political issues of "blind support" and "baseless criticism" to repeat. We still cheer for administrations as if they were sports teams or distrust them unconditionally regardless of policies.

Of course, the government should not be the object of emotional likes or dislikes but rather subject to cold evaluation. And that evaluation must be based on rational and transparent standards. Now is the time to set clear benchmarks in advance for evaluating the next government. Only then can we objectively judge whether any government achievement is truly a "good" or "bad" outcome. Evaluation without standards ultimately leads to emotional conflicts, and the damage falls directly on the people.

Naturally, the evaluation criteria we set must encompass diverse perspectives. For example, it is too simplistic to assess the economy solely by GDP growth figures. It is more important to look at South Korea’s relative growth compared to the OECD average. Furthermore, analysis must also consider whether growth was achieved through increased government debt or through productivity-based qualitative growth. If growth was driven by temporary fiscal spending, it cannot be regarded as a substantive achievement.

Changes in South Korea’s global ranking in market capitalization of its capital markets can also be an important evaluation indicator. This does not mean cheering simply because the KOSPI index rose. We need to compare how much the Korean stock market has increased relative to the averages of major countries and evaluate how much the capital market has contributed to citizens’ investment income or labor income. Improvement in the Gini coefficient, an indicator of income inequality, should not be overlooked either. Of course, this secondary evaluation must verify whether the improvement was achieved sustainably, not just through short-term welfare expansion. Additionally, practical and quantitative standards should be established and regularly reviewed in fields such as education, diplomacy, labor markets, and technological innovation.

Setting benchmarks is not merely for criticizing the government. Rather, it is the starting point for the government to clarify policy goals and build trust with the public through implementation. Only with standards can policies be designed with direction. Most importantly, in an era of information overload where fake news floods social media, YouTube, and portal algorithms, it is becoming increasingly difficult to discern the truth. Without clear standards in such an environment, the public may misjudge government performance amid confusion and risk choosing the wrong leader. The cost of this will be passed on directly to the next generation.

Let us set benchmarks for the next government immediately. To create a culture of evaluating the government based on clear criteria and rational judgment rather than emotions or political leanings, the roles of scholars and the media in selecting and executing evaluation standards are crucial. I sincerely hope we can move from a "society anxious that the country will fail if the administration changes" to a "society where whoever governs is held accountable according to standards."

Seo Junsik, Professor of Economics, Soongsil University