logo
South Korea election results 2025: Who won, who lost, what's next?

South Korea election results 2025: Who won, who lost, what's next?

Al Jazeera3 days ago

Lee Jae-myung, the candidate for the opposition Democratic Party, is poised to become South Korea's next president after provisional results of a snap election showed him on course for a comfortable win.
The election was triggered by former President Yoon Suk-yeol's short-lived imposition of martial law in December.
The 61-year-old Lee is expected to be sworn in on Wednesday, becoming the country's 14th president after defeating Kim Moon-soo of the conservative People Power Party (PPP). The South Korean president has a single five year term, without the possibility of re-election.
The PPP's Yoon was impeached and removed from office in early April for his martial law debacle. The shock move sparked weeks of protests and investigations and made Yoon South Korea's shortest-serving president.
Here is what you need to know about Tuesday's election and its impact:
With 85 percent of ballots counted, the National Election Commission said that provisional results showed Lee winning more than 48 percent of the votes, with Kim at 42.9 percent votes.
Though the NEC is yet to formally declare a winner, Kim has conceded defeat, congratulating Lee on his win.
Shortly before Kim's concession, Lee emerged outside his house in Seoul, where throngs of supporters had gathered. Lee told them that he was 'highly likely to become the president'.
Nearly 80 percent of the country's 44.4 million eligible voters cast ballots – the highest turnout since 1997, according to the electoral body.
Earlier, exit polls by South Korea's three major TV stations – KBS, MBC and SBS – projected a comfortable win for Lee. The exit polls projected more than 50 percent of the vote for the opposition candidate and 39 percent for Kim.
Trailing behind them was Lee Jun-seok of the conservative New Reform Party. Analysts said Kim underperformed, hurt by his ties to Yoon and his failure to persuade Lee Jun-seok to unify the right-wing vote. By late on Tuesday, Lee Jun-seok too had conceded defeat.Lee – who served as governor of South Korea's most populous province, Gyeonggi, and mayor of Seongnam near the capital, Seoul – is a divisive figure. This election marked the human rights lawyer-turned-politician's third attempt to secure the presidency.
Lee lost the last presidential election to Yoon by the slimmest margin in the country's democratic history. He went on to lead the Democratic Party to a landslide victory in last year's legislative elections and was the driving force behind the opposition-led campaign to remove Yoon from office.
During the six-hour martial law period, Lee scaled the National Assembly walls to bypass military blockades, livestreamed his entry and urged citizens to protest. Nearly two-thirds of the lawmakers ultimately made it past the barricades to vote unanimously to end the emergency measures.
Despite his critics calling him a dangerous populist, Lee has promised to pursue pragmatic diplomacy: calling South Korea's alliance with the United States the foundation of its foreign policy and promising to solidify a Seoul-Washington-Tokyo partnership, a stance that is not much different from the position held by the conservatives.
He has preached patience over US President Donald Trump's tariff policy, arguing it would be a mistake to rush negotiations in pursuit of an early agreement with Washington.
Lee has also pledged to improve relations with rival North Korea, including reopening dialogue, restoring military hotlines and reviving denuclearisation talks.
The East Asian country's deep-seated economic inequality is another issue Lee has promised to fix. He has advocated for a four-and-a-half-day workweek in a country known for its demanding work culture.
Lee is facing five ongoing trials related to corruption and other criminal charges. Most of these cases have been delayed until after the election. He denies any wrongdoing and says the charges are politically motivated.
Lee capitalised on his role as an opposition member by standing against Yoon's martial law bid and promising to guide the country out of its political and economic turmoil.
Experts said Yoon also left the PPP in crisis as infighting plagued the party when it tried to choose his successor.
Although Kim won the party primary, PPP leaders tried to replace him with former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo. On the eve of the party's campaign launch, they cancelled Kim's candidacy, only to reinstate him after party members opposed the move.
Youngshik Bong, research fellow at Yonsei University in Seoul, said the infighting as well as divisions in the conservative camp over Yoon's decree have cost it support.
'Kim Moon-soo has not set his position clearly on the martial law declaration,' Bong said. 'He has not distanced himself from the legacy of Yoon, but at the same time, he has not made it clear whether he believes the declaration of martial law was a violation of the constitution. So the PPP has not really had enough energy to mobilise its support bases.'
The botched martial law cast a shadow over the election. It put Lee, after his loss to Yoon in 2022, back on track for the presidency.
'This election would not have happened if not for the declaration of martial law by Yoon Suk-yeol and his impeachment,' Bong said. 'These issues have sucked in all others like a vortex. Everything else is marginal.'
On the campaign trail, Lee pledged to bring to justice anyone involved in Yoon's failed martial law bid and to introduce tighter controls on the president's ability to declare martial law.
A slowing economy, challenges posed by Trump's America First policies and worsening ties with North Korea were other topics that mattered to the voters.
Lee is to take his oath of office on Wednesday morning. The certification process is expected to take no more than 10 minutes.
There's usually a two-month gap between a presidential election and the winner's swearing-in, but the recent political turmoil scrapped that plan.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Indonesia beat China to boost World Cup hopes in AFC qualifying
Indonesia beat China to boost World Cup hopes in AFC qualifying

Al Jazeera

timea day ago

  • Al Jazeera

Indonesia beat China to boost World Cup hopes in AFC qualifying

Indonesia have kept alive their hopes of qualifying for the FIFA World Cup for only the second time in their history with a nervy 1-0 win that has ended opponents China's hopes of qualifying. Oli Romeny scored the only goal of Thursday's game from the penalty spot in the first half of the Asian Football Confederation qualifier in Jarkarta. The spot kick was awarded after Yang Zexiang brought down Ricky Kambuaya on the stroke of half-time. It dealt a blow to the Chinese, whose defence was mounting pressure on the hosts, given the expectations on them. In the first kickoff of the day in the group, Australia took a giant stride towards sealing another qualification spot by beating already qualified Japan 1-0. Aziz Behich scored the winner with a curling effort from the edge of the box in the 90th minute. Saudi Arabia hosted Bahrain in the final kickoff of the day in Group C. Anything other than a win for the home side would guarantee Australia's progress while Bahrain needed a win themselves to retain a chance of climbing above Indonesia into the final playoff spot. Kambuaya had Indonesia's first sighter, but the effort from range flew wide of the right-hand upright. Wang Yudong, making his international debut at 18, was the brightest spark in China's start and steered an effort wide after a counter off the back of mounting pressure from the hosts. Han Pengfei had China's best chance, though, when he flashed his header over the bar from Serginho's corner. Romeny had twice had near misses himself, one just wide and the other too close to the keeper, before slotting home the crucial kick from the spot. Indonesia travel to Japan for their final group game on Tuesday.

Beijing warns the EU to stop ‘provoking trouble' in the South China Sea
Beijing warns the EU to stop ‘provoking trouble' in the South China Sea

Al Jazeera

time2 days ago

  • Al Jazeera

Beijing warns the EU to stop ‘provoking trouble' in the South China Sea

China has told the European Union to stop 'provoking trouble' in the South China Sea after EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas expressed concerns about Beijing's coercive activities in the strategically important waterway. 'We urge the EU to genuinely respect China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea and to stop provoking trouble,' a spokesperson for China's embassy in Manila said in a statement on Thursday. China said the EU had no right to interfere in regional issues, and advised the Philippines that it should stop 'fantasising about relying on external forces' to resolve disputes regarding the sovereignty of the South China Sea. The warning from China's embassy follows a meeting between Kallas and the Philippines' foreign minister, Enrique Manalo, in Manila earlier this week, where they announced a new security and defence dialogue between the EU and the Philippines to counter threats like foreign interference, cyberattacks and misinformation campaigns. The two sides also expressed concerns about China's 'illegal, coercive, aggressive and deceptive measures' against Philippine vessels and aircraft carrying out lawful maritime operations in the South China Sea. When asked by reporters about the EU's red lines towards China in the South China Sea, Kallas said that the EU is committed to upholding peace and a rules-based order. 'We reject any unilateral changes to the status quo, including use of coercion,' Kallas said. Half a dozen countries, including the Philippines, lay claim to different parts of the South China Sea, but Beijing claims sovereignty over almost all of it. The conflicting claims extend into the exclusive economic zones of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam, leading to frequent altercations between China and its neighbours.

White House makes misleading claims about Democratic opposition to tax bill
White House makes misleading claims about Democratic opposition to tax bill

Al Jazeera

time2 days ago

  • Al Jazeera

White House makes misleading claims about Democratic opposition to tax bill

In a news statement this week, the White House cherry-picked personal income tax-related elements in the 'big, beautiful bill', the wide-ranging tax and spending bill being pushed by United States President Donald Trump, and claimed that, in opposing the legislation as a whole, the Democratic Party was opposed to every individual item contained within it. Such a tactic is misleading, particularly since the White House cited measures in the bill that have been championed by Democrats to improve the lives of Americans and are not the reasons the Democrats have given for opposing the 'big beautiful bill'. Here's a fact-check of what the White House claims Democrats oppose: 'They're opposing the largest tax cut in history, which will put an extra $5,000 in their pockets with a double-digit percent decrease to their tax bills. In fact, Americans earning between $30,000 and $80,000 will pay around 15% less in taxes.' The specifics of the tax bill have not been finalised. In its current form, it would cut taxes by an average of 2.4 percent, for middle-income households, according to analysis by the Tax Policy Center. While it is a significant tax cut, it is not the biggest in history. That was under Ronald Reagan in 1981 at 2.9 percent. It is accurate that there will be a double-digit percentage decrease in tax bills, at least in the immediate term, at a little more than 11 percent across all tax brackets. It is also true that people earning between $30,000 and $80,000 will pay 15 percent less, according to the Non-Partisan Joint Committee on Taxation. 'They're opposing NO TAX ON TIPS for the millions of Americans who work in the service industry and NO TAX ON OVERTIME for law enforcement, nurses, and more.' This is true only in their opposition to Trump's tax and spending bill. Democrats and Republicans have supported the concept of no tax on tips. Both Donald Trump and the Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris pledged to do so on the campaign trail. Senate Democrats backed the No Tax on Tips Act, passed by the US Senate on May 20. The bill, authored by Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, was co-sponsored by notable Democrats, including Jacky Rosen of Nevada and passed unanimously. 'They're opposing historic tax cuts for senior citizens' Outside of the 'big beautiful bill', Democrats have generally not opposed tax cuts for seniors. Many Democrats have championed legislation that would expand tax cuts for seniors. California Democrat Jimmy Panetta co-sponsored a Republican led bill that would increase the standard deduction for adults over the age of 65 by $4,000. In 2024, House Democrats introduced the 'You Earned It, You Keep It Act', which would effectively eliminate taxes on social security benefits. The bill, however, has never made it past committee. 'They're opposing a boost to the child tax credit.' Again, they are opposing Trump's 'big beautiful bill', not objecting to the child tax credit. In fact, Democrats have long pushed to expand the child tax credit. In April, Senate Democrats, including Georgia's Raphael Warnock and Colorado's Michael Bennett, introduced legislation that would expand the child tax credit. The bill would increase the tax credit, from $2,000 where it currently stands, to $6,360 for newborns, $4,320 for children ages one to six and $3,600 for children six to 17, permanently. While the 'big beautiful bill' would also increase the child tax credit, it would do so only by $500, and that would kick in in 2028. 'They're opposing new savings accounts for newborns and the chance for children across America to experience the miracle of compounded growth.' In the 'big beautiful bill', House Republicans introduced new savings accounts for children. The accounts would include a $1,000 handout for every child born between January 1, 2025 and January 1, 2029. Democrats have not only been supporters of the idea for savings accounts for newborns, but prominent Democrats actually championed it. In 2018, Cory Booker of New Jersey introduced the American Opportunity Accounts Act, which would also give $1,000 to newborns and up to $2000 in annual contributions. He reintroduced the bill again in 2023. 'They're opposing expanded access to childcare for hardworking American families.' This appears to be false. The White House link refers to the Paid Family and Medical Leave Credit, not child care access. Trump's bill offers up to 12 weeks of paid leave for employees who have worked a year and earn $57,600 or less. While that gives parents more time at home, Democrats have focused on expanding access to child care, including universal pre-K. In 2023, Republicans opposed a Democratic plan to keep child care centres open that struggled in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. 'They're opposing historic border security to keep their communities safe.' Last year, Trump pressured Republicans to vote against a bipartisan border security bill, a move that reportedly helped Trump's chances of winning in November 2024. Democrats have opposed Republican plans to use US military bases for migrant detention, arguing that it misuses Department of Defense resources. Democrats have long opposed border wall funding, including during Trump's first term. A 2018 Stanford University analysis estimated that a border wall would reduce migration by just 0.6 percent. Despite this, the 'big beautiful bill' allocates more than $50bn to complete the wall and maritime crossings, $45bn for building and maintaining detention centres, and $14bn for transportation. 'They're opposing expanded health savings accounts that give Americans greater choice and flexibility in how they spend their money.' This is sort of true. Democrats have not been huge proponents of health savings accounts. The belief is that healthcare savings accounts do not help the socioeconomically disadvantaged, who may not have the financial resources to contribute to the accounts. Democrats have also objected to other cuts to healthcare in the bill, including the potential $880bn that could be cut from essential government programmes like Medicaid. 'They're opposing scholarships that empower Americans to choose the education that best fits the needs of their families.' In the bill, the White House is conflating the longstanding debate on school choice with scholarships. Under school choice, funds otherwise allocated to the public school system can be re-allocated to private institutions, which Republicans argue will allow students to have potential access to a higher quality education. Democrats have opposed school choice because it diverts funds from public school systems, many of which are already drastically underfunded. In Texas, Senator Ted Cruz, for example, pushed legislation that would expand school choice, even as three out of four school districts in the state are underfunded, according to a Kinder Institute analysis.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store