[Lee Byung-jong] Boss politics in Korea and US

Korea Herald

a day ago

Despite vastly different political histories, South Korea and the United States are beginning to resemble each other in one critical respect: the rise of boss politics. This style of personality-driven leadership, defined by charismatic control over political parties and unwavering loyalty from supporters, has become increasingly evident in both countries. It marks a shift from institutional politics to one dominated by individual influence — where dissent is punished and power is concentrated around a singular figure.
Boss politics is hardly new to South Korea. Since democratization in the late 1980s, charismatic political leaders have held sway over their parties through tightly controlled political machines. The 'Three Kims' — former Presidents Kim Young-sam, Kim Dae-jung and former Prime Minister Kim Jong-pil — dominated the political landscape for decades. Their power was rooted in regional loyalties and an ability to distribute resources, positions and nominations. Political funding and National Assembly candidate selections were tools for consolidating authority, and loyalty was often valued over competence. Dissenters were purged, and sycophancy was rewarded.
Though the era of the Three Kims formally ended in the early 2000s, their legacy lives on. Presidents from both conservative and progressive camps have continued the practice of consolidating power within their parties. Patronage networks remain strong, where personal connections and allegiance are often more critical than experience or ability. Former President Yoon Suk-yeol, who was eventually impeached, was criticized for appointing close friends and former prosecutor colleagues to key posts, suggesting that meritocracy took a back seat to loyalty.
President Lee Jae Myung, currently in office, presents a mixed picture. While his first cabinet includes respected professionals, it also features loyalists known for their unwavering support. His political rise — from a mayor of a small city to national prominence — was largely fueled by a fiercely devoted base comprising 30 to 40 percent of the electorate. This "concrete base" has not only protected Lee during legal and political challenges but has also aggressively targeted his critics, especially online. During the 2024 parliamentary elections, for instance, many of Lee's intraparty rivals lost their seats, while his allies cruised to victory thanks to mobilized grassroots support.
A similar political dynamic exists across the Pacific. In the United States, President Donald Trump has established near-total control over the Republican Party through his Make America Great Again movement. Trump's influence is so powerful that few in the GOP dare to oppose him publicly. The fate of former Rep. Liz Cheney — a senior Republican and daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney — illustrates the point. After denouncing Trump's false claims about the 2020 election, she was removed from her leadership role and lost her reelection bid. The message was clear: Loyalty to Trump trumps loyalty to the party or constitutional principles.
Those who remain loyal to Trump are often rewarded. He has handpicked candidates for elections and installed allies in key government roles. Notable examples include Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News contributor who wholeheartedly supported Trump's foreign policy. Federal Attorney General Pam Bondi is a former Florida attorney general who served on Trump's impeachment defense team. Critics argue that these appointments prioritized personal loyalty over qualifications or institutional knowledge.
Trump's governance philosophy is grounded in the belief that elected officials should wield unquestioned authority over the government. He has long railed against the so-called 'Deep State,' a term he uses to describe career bureaucrats whom he views as obstructing his policy goals. Determined to avoid what he sees as sabotage, Trump is pursuing a sweeping overhaul of the civil service, including mass firings and agency shutdowns — all with the goal of ensuring full compliance from the bureaucracy.
To a somewhat lesser extent, President Lee Jae Myung shares Trump's views on the power of elected officials over appointed ones. In a lecture to newly appointed government managers last month, Lee said, 'Bureaucrats should follow the will of elected power — namely, the president. That is the principle of democracy, because elected officials most directly represent the people's will.' Reflecting that philosophy, his administration is considering a major structural shift: moving the government's budgetary authority from the Ministry of Strategy and Finance to the presidential office or the prime minister's office, a change that would significantly increase executive control over national policy.
Both Korea and the US operate under presidential systems, where a strong executive is a constitutional feature. Yet, equating presidential strength with unchallenged authority risks undermining the bureaucracy's role. Professional civil servants bring institutional memory, expertise and continuity, which are essential for effective governance — especially in complex, policy-heavy areas like health care, defense and climate change.
Frequent leadership changes already lead to inconsistent policymaking. In South Korea, for example, nuclear energy policy has swung back and forth depending on which party is in power, creating confusion among stakeholders and inefficiencies in long-term planning. Similar instability can be seen in US foreign policy and environmental regulations, which have shifted dramatically between administrations.
Charismatic political leaders with devoted followings may appear to be political titans. In the short term, their dominance over party structures and policymaking may seem unshakable. But effective governance is not about control — it's about collaboration. Presidents Trump and Lee both enjoy strong support from passionate political bases, enabling them to dominate their parties. However, long-term success in government depends less on fervent followers and more on capable, independent institutions. Boss politics might secure elections. But only bureaucratic integrity and institutional professionalism can secure lasting national progress.