![[Column] From 63% to 37%: What Presidential Approval Ratings Tell Us](https://www.europesays.com/unitedstates/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/1791095542-1200x1024.jpeg)
Kim Myung-gon, central chairman of the Association of Citizens for Fair Elections
◼ A curve in just one year
In a Korea Gallup survey conducted Sept. 15-17, President Lee Jae-myung’s favorable job-performance rating fell to 37%, its lowest level since he took office. The 56% unfavorable rating was the highest. Real estate and personnel appointments topped the reasons for negative assessments. In a survey conducted in early September 2025, ahead of his 100th day in office, Lee’s favorable rating stood at 63%. That ranked third among all presidents, behind Kim Young-sam at 83% and Moon Jae-in at 78%. The rating has fallen 26 percentage points in one year. It has declined for three consecutive weeks. The curve brings a familiar fact back into focus: South Korean presidents generally reach their peak approval ratings soon after taking office, then decline throughout their terms. Expectations that this time would be different have once again proved misplaced. The recurring pattern has reemerged: public trust in a president elected by the people begins to falter before the first year in office is over.
◼ The recurring downward curve
Presidents entered office with widely varying approval ratings after their first 100 days: Kim Young-sam, 83%; Moon Jae-in, 78%; Kim Dae-jung, 62%; Roh Tae-woo, 57%; Park Geun-hye, 53%; Yoon Suk Yeol, 28%; and Lee Myung-bak, 21%. By the end of their terms, however, most had converged at roughly the same point. Kim Young-sam stood at 6%, Roh Tae-woo at 12%, and Kim Dae-jung and Lee Myung-bak at 24%. Park’s rating fell into the single digits amid her impeachment. Moon Jae-in came closest to being the only president to break the usual pattern, with an approval rating in the 40s at the end of his term. Compared with recent U.S. presidents, whose end-of-term ratings have generally moved through the 40s, and French President Emmanuel Macron, whose rating remained in the 30s even after his re-election, the decline for South Korean presidents is unusually steep. Why does this curve keep repeating itself? The pattern cannot be explained by the president’s qualities alone. It reflects the way presidents are elected, the powers attached to the office and the media environment surrounding it.
◼ Why approval ratings collapse
First, the presidential system creates a winner-take-all structure. An election victory is interpreted as a mandate to govern across the board, while an early reform drive prompts the opposition to rally. Second, trust breaks down first in areas where the results of governing are not immediately felt. Real estate, prices and jobs are always among them. It is no coincidence that real estate and personnel appointments were cited as the leading reasons for negative assessments in this Korea Gallup survey. Third, personnel decisions are read as signals. A single appointment can have more impact than several policies. When controversial appointments are repeated, supporters begin to turn away. Fourth, the news cycle has grown shorter. Since YouTube and social media began updating public sentiment every day, the president has become someone evaluated every week. The excitement of the first 100 days does not last long. Fifth, the five-year, single-term limit weakens incentives to manage approval ratings. Without the pressure of seeking re-election, a lower rating in the latter part of a term becomes less an opportunity to recalibrate the government’s direction than the result of an inevitable slide.
◼ Approval ratings are a signal entrusted by citizens
An approval rating is not the president’s personal asset. It is the practical force that keeps the government running and a weekly signal of how effectively the power entrusted by citizens is being used. When approval ratings collapse, the president has two tasks: acknowledge the causes directly and actually adjust the direction of governance, including personnel decisions. The temptation to do the opposite is always there. When approval is low, presidents may seek a turnaround through hard-line decisions, push through appointments and define the opposing side as an enemy. The latter part of a president’s term has always unraveled at that point. This is also where citizens must remain vigilant: what the president gives up and what the president pushes through because approval has fallen, which voices the president hears and which voices the president silences. Both 63% and 37% ultimately represent the judgment of citizens. The fact that this judgment is renewed every week is the strength of presidential democracy. Before blaming the curve in the approval ratings, the president must stand before the citizens who created it once again every week.