SEOUL, South Korea — Exit polls show that the Democratic Party of Korea’s Lee Jae-myung easily won the country’s presidential election Tuesday, as South Koreans flocked to the polls in the wake of domestic political turbulence and under the long shadow cast by expansive China.
All indications are victory for Mr. Lee, a career-long far leftist who has shifted his and his party’s political stances to center right in recent months.
Expectations were that results would be known around midnight, with voting stations closing at 8 p.m. They became clear far earlier.
Exit polls by the three main broadcasters found Mr. Lee won 51.7% of the vote; his conservative opponent, Kim Moon Soo of the People Power Party, trailed with 39.3%.
“Our slogan during the election was that we should punish [the PPP] overwhelmingly,” the DPK’s spokesperson told broadcaster YTN around 8:45 p.m. “But today, we must not be arrogant.”
Official counts of 20% of votes at 10:45 p.m. showed a closer race: 47.5% Lee, 44.2% for Kim.
Though some divergence may be expected between exit polls and the final count, the PPP’s spokesperson cautiously conceded at 8:45 p.m..
Early tallies of voter turnout reached 79.4%.
The campaign for the five-year presidency was short. Then-President Yoon Suk Yeol of the PPP stunned the nation on Dec. 4 by declaring martial law. He was impeached amid a political crisis that triggered Tuesday’s election two years ahead of schedule.
Mr. Lee and Mr. Kim led an all-male field. Mr. Kim’s failure to merge candidacies with other conservatives further undercut a campaign that lagged far behind Mr. Lee’s in opinion polls.
Mr. Lee’s mandate is meaty. Alongside his presidential win, the DPK controls the National Assembly for the next three years, leaving Korean conservatives virtually powerless.
He assumes immediate power Wednesday at the presidential office in the Ministry of National Defense compound.
The office was moved there from the presidential Blue House by Mr. Yoon. Persistent rumors have it that shamans urged the move due to the dire fates suffered by so many prior presidents and ex-presidents — exile, assassination, suicide and prison.
Currently, Mr. Yoon is battling prosecutors who insist martial law constituted insurrection. The charge carries potential sentences of life in jail or even death.
Korea’s new president
A famously no-nonsense figure, Mr. Lee, 61, is a beneficiary of Mr. Yoon’s blunder. Mr. Lee live-streamed his actions on the night of martial law.
Speeding to the National Assembly, he evaded commandos and police and rallied representatives to vote down martial law three hours after its declaration.
Today is third time lucky. Mr. Lee, who earned his political chops as a mayor and provincial governor, lost the last presidential election against Mr. Yoon by a whisker. Prior to that, he had lost his party’s primary.
A formidable persona with a childhood background of deep poverty, Mr. Lee in February rebranded the customarily leftist DPK — to raised eyebrows — as “center right.”
On geopolitical touchstones, he has committed to maintaining the U.S. alliance as the cornerstone of national security.
Reversing his reputation as a pro-China
A consistent Japan basher, he also has stated — less effusively — that he will not degrade an emerging Seoul-Tokyo-Washington security trilateral.
However, he is unlikely to ignore divisive Seoul-Tokyo historical disputes shelved by Mr. Yoon.
Alongside conservative suspicions about Mr. Lee’s new political stance, some question his endless — but effectively defended — legal entanglements on raps ranging from corruption to funneling money to North Korea.
He has made no secret of his desire to thaw frozen relations with Pyongyang. That may sync with President Trump, who in his first term enjoyed a bromance with Kim Jong-un.
Otherwise, U.S. relations look fraught.
Economically, Mr. Lee has until July 9 to work out a trade deal with Washington before it imposes tariffs on Korean products. Korea has run massive trade surpluses with the U.S. for decades.
Strategically, as the U.S. prioritizes deterring China over North Korea, Mr. Lee may face pressures from Washington to cut Korea-based GIs’ numbers, pay more for their costs and shift their mission from the peninsula to region-wide.
The issues, the voters
Voting day — a sun-drenched public holiday — showcased stability, even jollity. TV broadcasters illustrated exit poll tallies with cartoon avatars of Mr. Lee and Mr. Kim competing in outdoor exercises, football and even a toilet-plunging contest.
Behind these upbeat optics, Mr. Lee’s challenges are multifaceted.
His country is politically polarized.
Mr. Yoon, whose Cabinet appointees had suffered an unprecedented number of impeachments at the hands of the DPK in the National Assembly, said “anti-state forces” were in play and pointed the finger at Chinese electoral interference.
Many conservatives believe these allegations, see Mr. Yoon as a heroic figure who sacrificed himself, and are deeply suspicious of the National Election Commission.
U.S. observers from the National Election Integrity Association reported a number of irregularities in early voting last week and urged the NEC to acknowledge their “gravity.” On May 31, the NEC’s head apologized, though the commission has resisted internal probes of its organization.
Economic and social challenges are intertwined.
The economy has matured, leaving highly educated youth facing under-employment and unable to acquire homes. Korea also faces a demographic crisis driven by a tumbling birthrate.
Some fear that 2024 was “Peak Korea” — after which the country’s fortunes, ascendant since the 1960s, will begin a long, slow decline.
What happens in South Korea matters for America
South Korea, a U.S. treaty ally strategically sited on the doorsteps of China and North Korea, offers some 28,000 U.S. troops their only bootprint in continental Asia. At the epicenter of Northeast Asia, South Korea is also central to multiple global supply chains, including computer chips, steel, ships and weaponry.
Complicating Washington relations, Seoul cannot ignore neighboring economic giant Beijing, nor nuclear-armed Pyongyang — both a fraternal neighbor and a deadly enemy.
Many South Koreans vote along regional lines. That makes the national capital key.
Some 10 million middle-class citizens live in Seoul, and the city is surrounded by port, dormitory and factory towns that, with the capital, house half the nation’s 51-million strong population.
Seoul residents who spoke to The Washington Times Tuesday were divided.
“I was not happy with the candidates, but there was no other choice,” said Lee Tae-ha, a marketing professional. “Their campaigns were mainly criticizing each other, they didn’t communicate their policies — security, economic, commercial educational, depolarization.”
He voted for Mr. Lee.
“He has more knowledge and experience, and he went through bad situations in the past,” he said. “Martial law was crazy — it cost a lot of people money, caused pain, an economic downturn. Who’s going to pay?”
Another Lee voter was Chang Su-beom, who runs a design firm.
“I was only happy with candidate Lee,” he said. “He is the most fair leader, the most democratic, the most effective.”
Sarah Song, who runs a PR firm, differed.
“Lee is a criminal, so I can’t support him,” she said. “Someone with no integrity should not be a leader.”
Others voted for politics over personalities.
“I voted for the conservative party as the leftist party has always been too vague about their position toward North Korea and human rights,” said Jeon Areum, a housewife. “The conservatives have a better attitude about relations with other countries.”
Martial law impacted electoral choices.
“When you think about why this election happened, it was pretty obvious we had no choice but Lee,” Mr. Chang said.
“Martial law made me more supportive of Yoon, it was not a 1970s or ‘80s type of martial law,” said Ms. Song, referring to Korea’s pre-democratic era of authoritarian governance. “I dug into what was happening in political circles, and I saw why he did it: Everything added up.”
• Andrew Salmon can be reached at asalmon@washingtontimes.com.