10 Leaders The Economist March 12th 2022
A
t last, itis over. A bitter presidentialelectioncampaignbe
tween two unpopular candidates, marred by scandal and
notable chiefly for mudslinging, culminated on March 9th,
when South Koreans turned out in droves to keep from office
one of two roundly despised men: Yoon Sukyeol of the conser
vative People Power Party, and Lee Jaemyung, a populist from
the ruling leftofcentre Minjoo party. In the end it was Mr Yoon
who prevailed—by a waferthin margin (see Asia section). He
will take charge of the world’s tenthlargest economy in May.
Mr Yoon, a former prosecutor instrumental in bringing down
Park Geunhye, a scandalplagued former president, joined poli
tics only last year. He ran on a platform of anticorruption and a
more realist foreign policy. Yet when he takes
over from Moon Jaein, theoutgoing president,
he will face a set of challenges similar to those
that greeted his predecessor five years ago. At
home, these include stratospheric house pric
es, a lack of opportunities for the young and a
persistent disillusionment with politics.
Abroad, he faces an increasingly tricky balanc
ing act between China and the United States
and tetchy relations with South Korea’s close neighbour, Japan.
Geopolitics has taken on a new urgency as Vladimir Putin’s
invasion of Ukraine forces smaller states to reconsider their se
curity. South Korea has joined America, Europe and Japan in
condemning Russia and imposing sanctions. Mr Yoon has
joined analysts in Seoul in stressing the importance of closer
alignment with the West and said that he will take a harder line
on China and on nuclear negotiations with North Korea. Yet
South Korea sends a quarter of its exports to China, making it
vulnerable to coercion should its more forceful commitment to
its Western partners irritate the government in Beijing. So Mr
Yoon must strive to reduce his country’s dependence on its bigneighbour,perhapsbyforgingcloser ties in South and South
East Asia. He must also find a way for South Korea to make com
mon cause with Japan, the former colonial power.
On the home front, there are signs that house prices, which
nearly doubled during Mr Moon’s term, may be cooling. The cen
tral bank has started raising rates, and some of Mr Moon’s poli
cies, such as tightening mortgage rules, may be working. Mr
Yoon’s main task will be to avoid the temptation to fiddle.
Yet that will not be enough to solve the economic woes of
South Korea’s overqualified young people, who are frustrated by
a dearth of highquality jobs. Mr Yoon should pick up the thread
of Mr Moon’s labourmarket reforms. That means improving
conditions for people in irregular work by ex
panding unemployment insurance and pen
sion contributions; loosening overstringent
protections for regular employees; and ac
knowledging discrimination against women
and improving their job prospects.
The most important task for Mr Yoon, how
ever, is to tackle the disgust many South Kore
ans still feel about their country’s politics, de
spite Mr Moon’s promises to bring about change. After an unedi
fying campaign that hasconfirmed citizens’ views of politicians
as lying, corrupt and altogether unpleasant, it will not be easy.
For a start, politicians should forswear personal attacks on
their opponents and on members of civil society, not least wom
en and minorities. Since his party lacks a majority in the Nation
al Assembly, the new president must work with his opponents.
That is a chance to set an example, rather than continuing to
stoke partisan division. He should show that he works for all the
people, not just say it. If Mr Yoon can help voters feel represent
ed by their politicians rather thanappalled by them, it would
count as a welcome achievement.nYoon Suk-yeol must restore his citizens’ faith in politicsFrom prosecutor to president
South Koreaweek later. Offices are thinly staffed and often closed. Incredu
lous Tory backbenchers have called the response “robotic”, but
that is unfair on robots, which are at least efficient.
It is not the first time that Britain has coldshouldered des
perate people while promising to help them. Last year Ms Patel
promised not to abandon Afghans “living in terror” after the
Taliban took over. When her visa scheme opened in January, it
transpired that many of the 5,000 or so slots in the first year
would be filled by Afghans already living in Britain. The govern
ment is now trying to pass a bill that would criminalise asylum
seekers who turn up without permission (as asylumseekers
generally do). In that case, too, it has the nerve to claim that it
has their best interests at heart.
One excuse for the government’s behaviour is that Britons are
fickle. Although opinion polls show them to be far more gener
ous than their leaders, their sympathy for Ukrainians might last
only as long as the war leads the news. If a Ukrainian, or some
body pretending to be a Ukrainian, commits a crime in Britain,
they will blame the government. But this excuse is a poor one.
Other European countries also have jittery, xenophobic populations. Their leaders have rightly decided to offer shelter while
the war rages and sort out the inevitable mess later. Only Britain
is following a paperworkfirst policy.
Britain can treat foreigners generously. It has allowed about
100,000 Hong Kongers to immigrate in the past year, and regu
larised 5modd eucitizens fairly easily. But when confronted
with a fastmoving crisis the government lapses into meanness
and pettifoggery, as though piqued that it did not receive ad
vance written notice of events. This time it seems not to have lis
tened to its own spooks, who had warned for months about a
Russian invasion. Let them eat crisps
It is a fundamentally unserious government led by fundamen
tally unserious people. But more than a change of personnel is
required. The Home Office has long been one of Britain’s worst
departments, partly because of its sprawling role. It manages
both immigration and crime, so tends to view immigrants as ac
tual or potential criminals. It should be cutintwo. Neither arm
should be run by the incompetent Ms Patel.n