As 2025 draws to a close, it is natural to offer respect and comfort to the people of South Korea. Internally, the country overcame an unprecedented constitutional crisis triggered by an insurrection attempt involving a sitting president. Externally, it navigated the shockwaves of US President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff campaign with a degree of composure and strategic restraint. These outcomes were made possible not by chance, but by mature citizens and solid institutions.

However, to describe 2025 simply as a year “successfully overcome” would not be sufficient. The crises have not been fully resolved, and more importantly, they have left behind challenges that demand careful attention. South Korea still stands at a pivotal moment where hardship can either harden into stagnation or be transformed into an opportunity for national upgrade.

Before turning to the tasks, it is worth pausing to recognize the quiet strength shown by ordinary Koreans throughout 2025. In the face of political turmoil, social division and persistent uncertainty, most citizens chose patience, prudence and participation over frustration, panic and violence. There were almost no mass breakdowns of order, no retreat into institutional nihilism.

Civic norms prevailed. Courts functioned, elections retained legitimacy, markets avoided panic and daily life continued with remarkable resilience. This collective restraint and maturity deserve acknowledgment. Democracies do not survive solely because constitutions are well written; they survive because citizens choose, repeatedly, to uphold them even when trust in leaders falters.

Yet admiration alone is not enough. The first unfinished task lies in the aftermath of the insurrection crisis itself. Legal and judicial processes are ongoing, but accountability cannot be limited to courtroom outcomes. The deeper question concerns democratic resilience: how to redesign safeguards that prevent the abuse of power, how to reinforce checks that failed under pressure and how to address the social conditions that allowed misinformation and conspiracy narratives to spread so rapidly. The year 2026 must not be framed merely as a period of recovery, but as a moment for institutional recalibration.

A second major challenge concerns trade and industrial strategy. Korea’s response to the Trump administration’s tariff offensive has, so far, succeeded in preventing immediate damage. But stopping the bleeding is not the same as curing the disease. Tariff pressure is not a temporary anomaly; it reflects the structural convergence of US domestic politics and intensifying great-power competition.

The next round of negotiations is likely to be even more demanding. Korea’s objective must go beyond temporary relief. The true goal should be industrial improvement. Achieving this will require a full-spectrum national effort in which diplomacy, trade policy, and industrial strategy move in concert rather than in parallel silos.

A third national task should be added to this agenda: the pursuit of the K-Initiative. Proposed by President Lee Jae-myung, the initiative envisions Korea as a country that helps set global standards across multiple fields from technology and industry to governance, democracy, culture and social policy. In essence, it is a call for Korea to move beyond adaptation and toward leadership.

What makes the K-Initiative distinctive is its clarity: the ambition to share Korea’s experiences. That a country which stood among the world’s poorest just six decades ago can now aspire to become a global standard-setter is both remarkable and deeply symbolic. The K-Initiative is therefore not merely a policy slogan; it is an expression of national confidence shaped by historical experience. If pursued seriously, it can align democratic renewal, economic restructuring and global leadership into a single, forward-looking national project.

These tasks of strengthening democracy, restructuring its economic foundations and advancing the K-Initiative share a common prerequisite: the effective mobilization of national capacity. Here, Korea faces a critical obstacle. Political polarization has reached a level that significantly undermines collective action. A political culture that prioritizes demonization over persuasion and short-term factional gain over long-term national interest drains the country’s ability to respond coherently to complex challenges.

For Korea in 2026, therefore, the most urgent task is not rhetorical unity but the practical mitigation of political polarization. This is not a moral appeal but a strategic necessity. As long as polarization dominates public life, reforms will stall, negotiations will weaken and national energy will be wasted on internal conflict rather than external competition.

Several concrete steps are needed. First, political leaders must exercise restraint in their use of language. Extreme rhetoric that frames opponents as existential enemies may energize supporters in the short term, but it erodes trust and weakens governance over time. A broad social campaign emphasizing responsible political communication, which values accuracy, proportionality and respect, would help accommodate constructive competition among political groups while reducing perpetual confrontation.

Second, the government must demonstrate a commitment to inclusive governance. While close coordination with the ruling party is inevitable, systematic information sharing with opposition parties on major national issues is equally important. When opposition forces are treated solely as obstacles rather than stakeholders, policy becomes hostage to partisan conflict. The process of governance itself must convey a message of integration rather than exclusion.

Third, intellectuals and scholars must play a more active public role. Rather than siding with one political camp or another, they should help articulate long-term national direction and facilitate reasoned public debate during moments of controversy. Democracies are sustained not only by political competition, but by the presence of credible intermediaries who can translate complexity into shared understanding.

What made 2025 a remarkable year was the collective composure of the Korean people, grounded in the conviction that democracy is the backbone of the nation and that sovereignty ultimately resides with its citizens. What will define 2026 is whether that composure is rewarded with meaningful reform and strategic clarity. Many nations survive crises; fewer use them to change course. Korea is still standing at that crossroads.

Wang Son-taek

Wang Son-taek is an adjunct professor at Sogang University. He is a former diplomatic correspondent at YTN and a former research associate at Yeosijae. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. — Ed.

khnews@heraldcorp.com