왜 근본적 질문을 하지 않는가? [세상읽기]

The evaluation of President Jeomun's governmental management shows that negative assessments outweighed positive ones. This is not surprising, as it is a common experience for all presidents since democracies began. It is highly likely that this president will also face similar challenges. Although the president himself may feel regretful, they had previously pledged to achieve a COSPI index of 5,000 by the end of their term.

Although the economic growth rate is expected to exceed 3%, this is due to a special situation of a surge in the semiconductor industry. The special achievement of attracting advanced industries to the economically disadvantaged southern region of the country is also noteworthy. The foreign relations scandal and North Korea's normalization as a state are also commendable.

Other reforms, both large and small, have been implemented. Communication with the public has become more transparent, with the president holding press conferences and direct dialogues with the public when major issues arise. Why is the approval rating still low? Could it be due to the president's intervention in the proportional representation, their reluctance to implement the judicial reform demanded by their key supporters, or a combination of both?

These are the reasons why key supporters have left the president. According to the Korean Gallup survey, the proportion of inquiries about judicial reform was only 5%, while inquiries about housing policy and economic and social welfare issues amounted to 30% and 13%, respectively. If the government can quickly respond to these issues, will the approval rating rise?

President Jeomun's government is already responding quickly, but this response alone is insufficient to alleviate the crisis. The government's crisis is not due to the response to individual issues, but rather the lack of a fundamental question. The lack of a fundamental question means that there will be no real policies. This is not just a problem of President Jeomun's government.

The past Democratic Party governments also demanded a national long-term vision and a concrete strategy to achieve it, but all they received in return was the same response from the presidential office staff: "Achieve results in five years to win the next election and secure another term in office." This is simply a hollow statement.

All Democratic Party governments in the past responded optimally to the issues of the moment. However, many of these governments faced great difficulties in winning another term in office. The Kim Dae-jung government succeeded in winning back the government, but the Roh Moo-hyun and Park Geun-hye governments failed. The recent addition of Yoo Jeok-seol has caused significant pain to Korean democracy.

What is the problem? The answer is clear: the structure of society that relies too much on the market and private assets must be changed. The average pension amount for people who have paid into the National Pension for over 20 years is only 1,170,000 won. If people cannot accumulate assets, neither the poor nor the middle class can lead a secure life.

The problem is that opportunities to accumulate assets are not equally distributed to everyone because the market distributes opportunities based on purchasing power. Therefore, even with increased supply or regulatory policies, the desire for housing will not diminish. College admissions are also a concern. Redesign the system dozens of times.

Instead of having 10 elite universities like Seoul University, create 100 universities. Wages vary significantly based on the size of companies and the status of the labor market. If wages become too disparate, the meaning of the "five-year term" will be rendered meaningless. Competition will become even more intense. This is essential for responding to the current crisis.

However, if the response is based on the past methods, the root cause of the crisis will not be eliminated, and the five-year term curse will continue to recur. The question must be asked now, as it is an era of sudden change. Given that the president's term is five years, why should the welfare of the people be treated as a five-year issue?

The president's questions should target the root of the welfare issue, not just the next five years.