Inaugural speech should look ahead, not back

A former high-ranking official from an investigative agency once shared this story. At the beginning of a presidential term, three proposals regarding the scope and intensity of investigations into the previous administration were submitted to the Cheong Wa Dae. To make the distinctions clear, the most extensive investigative plan was marked in red, the moderate one in yellow, and the lightest in blue. “Why make so many enemies for the president?” a key aide with a political background asked and rebuked the report. As a result, the blue plan was adopted. That administration ended up relatively free from accusations of political retaliation.

The incoming administration, following this early presidential election, will likely face a similar situation. Regardless of who wins, there will come a moment to decide how to differentiate from the unpopular previous administration. The first such moment will likely be the inaugural address. An inauguration is not just a ceremony for a political party leader but a moment when the president is entrusted with national leadership. It requires a unifying gesture to bridge the deep divisions that arose during the election campaign. This is why inaugural speeches traditionally emphasize national unity and a forward-looking vision, rather than a “war on the past.”

A notable example is the Moon Jae-in administration, which also took power following an early election. During his campaign, Moon emphasized the need to “eradicate deep-rooted evils,” but he deliberately omitted this phrase from his inaugural address, prioritizing national unity instead. However, just two months later, the “eradication of deep-rooted evils” became the administration’s top agenda. A sweeping investigative drive was launched across government ministries. As a result, the administration’s future agenda was overshadowed by prosecutorial issues, and the opportunity to calmly restructure investigative agencies based on checks and balances was missed. Public opinion once again became divided over accusations of double standards, and his political party ultimately failed to secure a second term. Had the administration stayed true to its inaugural message, evaluations of the Moon government might have been different.

A more cautionary tale is the Yoon Suk Yeol administration. Despite winning by the narrowest margin in South Korea’s democratic history, Yoon did not even mention national unity in his inaugural speech, dismissing it as “self-evident.” In hindsight, one wonders whether the former prosecutor’s silence hinted at a hidden agenda to aggressively target the opposition. Warnings that the opposition party would demand equal scrutiny into the president’s own family following harsh investigations into the opposition were ignored. Eventually, the prosecution formed a large team to investigate the opposition leader. The outcome was disastrous. The investigations failed, and the president effectively collapsed under the pressure by declaring a state of emergency.

To effectively advance its agenda, a government must uphold national discipline. However, any reckoning with the past should focus only on areas with clear justification and public consensus. For instance, investigations into allegations surrounding the state of emergency or former President Yoon and his spouse should be viewed as exceptions, not as a form of political retaliation. That said, the truth must be uncovered with appropriate restraint in both scope and method. As noted earlier, ignoring the “blue investigation approach” could lead to severe backlash.

In a system where leaders are elected, there are no permanent winners. Every victory is eventually followed by defeat. It’s only a matter of time that the ruling party will inevitably become the opposition, and vice versa. Our society is now teetering on the edge of political and economic collapse following the declaration of a state of emergency. Meanwhile, the impeached former president, acting in tandem with hardline supporters, is actively fueling social division. The path to overcoming the state of emergency crisis cannot rely solely on settling the past. A new president must take the lead in making concessions and embracing the opposition to become “a president for all.” After all, democracy grows stronger when power is shared. This time, let us hope for a president who speaks not the words he wants to say, but the words people want to hear.