The recent decline in the President’s approval ratings should be interpreted not merely as a temporary fluctuation, but as a structural warning sign testing the administration's very survival. Signs of defection—not only among conservatives but also among moderates and the core support base—suggest that the ruling power is losing its grip on governance. It is a case of "withdrawn expectations." We are entering a phase where we must worry about a "lame-duck public sentiment," wherein the people no longer readily respond to government announcements or appeals.

 

The essence of this crisis lies in the excessive self-regard deeply ingrained in the President’s mindset. The problem stems from an attempt to overgeneralize past political successes and apply them indiscriminately to various complex state affairs. Consequently, there is a tendency to view dissenting opinions on state affairs not as reasonable checks or advice, but as resistance to reform. Such a mindset not only severely narrows the scope of governance but also leads to a disconnect from reality.

 

Ultimately, a control-oriented approach where the President personally defines and directs every issue paradoxically risks undermining the autonomy and sense of responsibility within the administrative apparatus. Bureaucracies become preoccupied with gauging the President’s intentions rather than ensuring policy success, and policy failures are frequently blamed on external forces rather than subjected to painful self-reflection. This monopolistic style of governance threatens to entrench a culture of bureaucratic irresponsibility, where no one is held accountable when outcomes are poor.

 

Unilateral governance that bypasses the process of persuasion has only deepened conflict instead of garnering the public's voluntary consent. In particular, the tendency to evade responsibility or consistently blame external factors—even in the face of policy failures or chaotic personnel management—has acted as a catalyst for deepening public distrust. There is also significant criticism that excessive political energy is being squandered on disputes regarding issues such as the withdrawal of indictments and the abolition of the prosecution's authority to conduct supplementary investigations.

 

The problem is that the more the administration relies on such a hardline exercise of power, the wider the gap between it and public sentiment becomes. While some within the Democratic Party are prioritizing the consolidation of their core support base, this is a dangerous move that could actually exacerbate the situation. Relying on hardline partisan logic causes moderate voters and loosely aligned supporters to gradually turn away. This path leads to contraction rather than expansion, ultimately regressing into an isolated political force dependent solely on a hardline base.

 

If the administration continues to regress—ignoring the diverse voices and demands of the public while hostile rhetoric runs rampant—the possibility of an early "lame duck" phase cannot be ruled out. The moment bureaucrats and ruling party lawmakers begin distancing themselves from the president for the sake of political survival, the administration’s political end is inevitable, regardless of the remaining term in office. A parliamentary majority may prevent the administration's ouster, but it cannot restore eroded governing legitimacy.

 

The solution is clear. First, the administration must shift its focus entirely from self-aggrandizement to public trust. Personnel reshuffles must prioritize public trust and professional expertise over mere loyalty. Regarding the controversy over the withdrawal of indictments—which has sparked public suspicion—the president needs to make a bold decision to stand trial, thereby demonstrating moral innocence. Sincerity must be demonstrated by halting any actions that could be perceived as the exercise of private power.

 

Furthermore, the state agenda must undergo a major shift to focus on the economy and the livelihoods of the people. The President’s rhetoric, too, must be recalibrated; it should serve as a means of empathy to soothe public anxiety rather than as a weapon aimed at political rivals. The logic of hostile factionalism must be shattered in favor of unconditional dialogue with the opposition. A flexible attitude toward cooperative governance is urgently needed—one that fosters institutional consensus through candid, pragmatic discussions, including with Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon.

 

True governing authority does not stem from legal coercion. Acknowledging one’s own errors can serve as a powerful political weapon for the nation's highest leader. Unless the current situation is faced squarely and the fundamental direction of state affairs is shifted, no remedy will suffice. The final opportunity to avert a premature "lame duck" phase lies in the President himself admitting the possibility of error and urgently reaching out to the people.

 

The time has come for the President to make a choice. He must decide whether to isolate himself through stubborn obstinacy or to open the door to public sentiment as a leader unafraid of change. Change matters more than words. It would be a grave miscalculation to attempt to win back a disillusioned public through one-off press conferences or events designed merely to shift the narrative. The only path to overcoming this crisis in state affairs begins with the President’s own sincere self-reflection and humble resolve.

 

* Author: Jeong Seong-tae (Poet/Columnist)