Understanding the Criteria for South Korean Presidential TV Debates
In the lead-up to the South Korean presidential election, only four candidates—Lee Jae-myung, Kim Moon-soo, Lee Jun-seok, and Kwon Young-guk—have been invited to participate in the televised debates, despite there being a total of seven registered candidates. This selection is not arbitrary but is dictated by specific legal criteria laid out in the Public Official Election Act.
The Legal Framework Behind Candidate Selection
The criteria for participating in the “Invited Candidate Debates” on major South Korean networks like KBS, MBC, and SBS are explicitly defined. According to Article 82-2 of the Public Official Election Act, a candidate qualifies for invitation based on one of three conditions:
1. The candidate’s party holds at least five seats in the National Assembly.
2. The candidate’s party received at least 3% of the vote in one of the previous presidential, parliamentary, or local elections.
3. The candidate has an average approval rating of at least 5% in polls designated by the National Election Commission.
These criteria ensure that only candidates with significant political backing or public support receive exposure during prime-time debates, which typically air from 8 PM to 10 PM, when viewership is highest.
Who Qualifies and Why?
For the 2025 presidential election, four candidates met at least one of these criteria. Lee Jae-myung of the Democratic Party meets both the parliamentary seat and past voting percentage criteria. Kim Moon-soo of the People Power Party also satisfies these conditions. Lee Jun-seok from the Reform Party, while lacking parliamentary representation, has consistently maintained a poll rating above 5%. Kwon Young-guk of the Democratic Labor Party, although without parliamentary seats, benefits from past electoral performances of his party, meeting the 3% threshold in previous elections.
The Exclusion of Other Candidates
Candidates like Gu Ju-hwa, Hwang Kyo-ahn, and Song Jin-ho do not meet the criteria for several reasons. Gu Ju-hwa’s Free Unification Party holds no parliamentary seats and lacks significant past electoral performance or poll ratings. Hwang Kyo-ahn and Song Jin-ho, both running as independents, inherently lack party-based qualifications and have not achieved the necessary poll ratings to qualify.
A Singular Opportunity for Excluded Candidates
Candidates who do not meet the invitation criteria are not entirely excluded from televised debates. They are provided a single opportunity to participate in a “Non-Invited Candidate Debate.” Unfortunately, these debates are often scheduled during late-night slots, typically after 10 PM, when viewership is minimal. For instance, during the 2022 elections, Huh Kyung-young participated in a debate that started at 11 PM, expressing dissatisfaction with this limited exposure despite having paid the same 300 million won registration fee as other candidates.
Is the System Fair?
While the invitation criteria may appear impartial, they tend to favor established parties, creating substantial barriers for new parties or independent candidates. The requirement of holding parliamentary seats or achieving past electoral success is nearly insurmountable for newcomers, while attaining a 5% poll rating without media exposure is equally challenging.
Calls for Reform
Critics argue that the system needs reform to ensure genuine fairness. Proposals include holding multiple debates or distributing debates across more accessible time slots to enhance public engagement. Moreover, there is a growing consensus that registered candidates who have met financial and procedural requirements should be guaranteed a baseline level of public exposure.
Reflecting on the Implications
The current debate selection criteria ensure only four candidates appear in prime-time slots, driven by legal standards that favor established political entities. However, as political landscapes evolve, it is crucial to reassess whether these standards promote true democratic engagement. TV debates are not merely a platform for political discourse but a vital democratic tool that can significantly influence voter perception and decision-making. Therefore, revisiting and potentially revising these criteria to accommodate a more diverse political spectrum becomes imperative.