South Korea's Final Presidential Debate Descends into Chaos: Insults Overshadow Policy as Election Approaches

A Night of Missed Opportunities

The third and final televised presidential debate held on May 27, 2025, was supposed to be the culminating moment for South Korean voters to make their final decision before the June 3 election. Instead, what unfolded at the MBC studio in Mapo District was a disappointing spectacle of personal attacks, mudslinging, and political theater that left observers questioning the state of Korean democracy.

The debate, which was meant to focus on healing political divisions and outlining foreign policy visions, quickly devolved into a blame game between the main candidates. Lee Jae-myung of the Democratic Party, Kim Moon-soo of the People Power Party, Lee Jun-seok of the New Reform Party, and Kwon Young-kook of the Democratic Labor Party spent more time attacking each other's character than presenting substantive policy solutions.

Political science professor Choi Chang-ryeol from Yongin University captured the sentiment of many observers when he described the debate as a disappointing display of third-rate politics in Korea. With just days left before the election, this should have been an opportunity for candidates to present policy visions and rally support from both conservatives and moderates.

Personal Attacks Take Center Stage

Rather than engaging in meaningful policy discussions, the candidates resorted to rehashing old controversies and launching personal attacks. Kim Moon-soo attacked Lee Jae-myung by invoking past scandals, including the so-called fake bachelor incident and profanity-laced recordings involving Lee's family members. Lee responded by bringing up allegations of Kim's mistreatment of firefighters during his time as Gyeonggi Province governor.

The attacks became so heated that Lee Jun-seok was accused of going home to shower and change clothes on the night of Yoon Suk Yeol's martial law declaration, arriving too late at the National Assembly to participate in the vote to lift martial law. Lee Jun-seok defended himself, claiming that the accusation was false and that he had not intentionally avoided the vote.

The negativity reached such a level that by the end of the debate, Lee Jae-myung and Kim Moon-soo filed mutual complaints for spreading false information. This unprecedented move highlighted just how toxic the political discourse had become, even in what was supposed to be a formal, regulated debate setting.

Foreign Policy and Security Discussions Overshadowed

Despite the debate's intended focus on foreign affairs and security issues, substantive policy discussions were largely overshadowed by political bickering. When the candidates did address policy matters, their exchanges revealed significant ideological differences on key issues such as South Korea's alliance with the United States and approach to North Korea.

Lee Jae-myung emphasized that the Korea-U.S. alliance should be the foundation of Korean diplomacy, calling for it to be developed substantively and in a future-oriented manner. However, he also argued that South Korea's defense should be based on its own independent missile defense system, while acknowledging that further debate over the already-deployed THAAD system would be unhelpful.

Kim Moon-soo proposed a firmer approach in dealing with North Korea, criticizing the Kim Jong-un regime for threatening people's lives with nuclear and missile provocations. He vowed to bolster nuclear deterrence capabilities backed by the South Korea-U.S. alliance and build a country that stands unwavering against any threat. Kim also indicated he could consider raising Seoul's share in defense cost-sharing if requested by U.S. President Donald Trump.

The Martial Law Shadow Looms Large

The specter of former President Yoon Suk Yeol's failed martial law attempt on December 3, 2024, dominated much of the debate discourse. Candidates repeatedly clashed over their responses to that constitutional crisis and their relationships with the impeached president. Lee Jae-myung grilled Kim Moon-soo on his stance regarding Yoon's impeachment, at one point calling him Yoon's avatar.

The martial law controversy became a litmus test for the candidates' democratic credentials, with each trying to position themselves as the true defender of democracy. Lee Jae-myung declared in his closing remarks that this election will decide whether the forces behind the insurrection return, or whether South Korea is reborn as a hopeful new democratic republic.

This focus on past events, while politically significant, came at the expense of forward-looking policy discussions that voters desperately needed to hear. The candidates seemed more interested in relitigating the constitutional crisis than in presenting their visions for South Korea's future.

Declining Public Interest and Institutional Failures

The poor quality of the debates was reflected in declining public interest, with viewer ratings dropping below 20 percent for the first time since televised debates were introduced in 1997. The first debate garnered 19.6 percent viewership, while the second managed only 18.4 percent, indicating that voters were tuning out of what should have been crucial democratic exercises.

Critics have pointed to institutional failures in the debate format itself. Currently, only three debates are mandated by the National Election Commission, each lasting 120 minutes. The rigid time allotment system limits each candidate's speaking time in free discussion to just six and a half minutes, preventing deeper engagement and allowing candidates to evade tough questions with vague or irrelevant answers.

Unlike in U.S. presidential debates, Korean moderators are limited to managing time rather than actively maintaining quality and pressing candidates for substantive answers. This mechanical approach to equality has proven inadequate for ensuring meaningful democratic discourse.

The Need for Urgent Reform

The failure of the 2025 presidential debates to serve their intended purpose has highlighted the urgent need for institutional reforms. Experts have called for increasing the number and duration of debates, revising the format to allow for more head-to-head exchanges, and giving moderators or policy experts the authority to question candidates directly on behalf of voters.

There are also concerns about the overcrowded debate format, where candidates polling at 1 or 2 percent receive equal speaking time as those polling at 30 or 40 percent. Raising the participation threshold could help sharpen focus on candidates with viable public support and improve the overall quality of discourse.

As South Korea approaches the June 3 election, voters are left with the disappointing reality that the formal debate process has failed to provide them with the substantive policy comparisons they need to make informed decisions. The debates that were supposed to promote rational voting have instead contributed to the very political polarization they were meant to address.