[Politics, That Day...] 'Strategist' Lee Hae-chan's Exit... The 2012 Presidential Election Held Without a Boss

November 18, 2012, Shaking the Presidential Election Landscape, Resignation of Democratic Party Leadership
Unification Talks Initiated but Absence of Election Strategist Proves a Boomerang

[Asia Economy Reporter Ryu Jeong-min]

Editor's Note‘Politics, That Day...’ is a series that looks back on Korean politics through the ‘recollection of memories’ related to notable scenes, events, and figures that deserve attention.

Lee Hae-chan, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, is holding a regular press briefing at the National Assembly on May 2, 2018. Photo by Yoon Dong-joo doso7@

‘Politician Lee Hae-chan’ is regarded as a ‘strategist’ representing Korean politics alongside former Environment Minister Yoon Yeo-jun. Neither of them are currently active politicians. However, their ‘insight’ in diagnosing political situations and ‘strategies’ that change the course of elections are still highly valued.

This is why the value of strategists representing Korean politics soars during major elections such as presidential elections. The People Power Party’s request for help from former lawmaker Kim Jong-in is a similar case. It shows the importance of borrowing the power of a proven strategist when entering the vast battlefield of a presidential election.

In this context, the 2012 presidential election is a mysterious election. At that time, politician Lee Hae-chan not only played the role of a presidential election strategist but also held the position of leader of the Democratic United Party, responsible for the election. Lee Hae-chan, who was in charge of the Democratic Party’s election campaign, abruptly resigned on November 18, 2012, one month before the presidential election.

Lee Hae-chan’s departure is a case that shows what results follow the absence of a party leader and the withdrawal of a key election aide just before a presidential election.

What would happen if you remove the ‘chariot’ and ‘cannon’ pieces in Janggi (Korean chess) and face your opponent? Why did the Democratic Party make such a choice at that time? To understand the situation, we need to go back to the busy day of November 18, 2012.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

At that time, the presidential election was dominated by the issue of unification between candidates Moon Jae-in and Ahn Cheol-soo. The Democratic Party focused its efforts on the belief that if unification with candidate Ahn Cheol-soo was achieved, victory in the presidential election was assured. This was also the background leading to Lee Hae-chan’s resignation one month before the election.

Lee Hae-chan stated at the time, “I am willing to accept any personal sacrifice,” explaining the reason for his resignation. It meant he would not hesitate to sacrifice himself for the victory of the presidential election. Lee Hae-chan’s departure was linked to Ahn Cheol-soo’s ‘return to unification negotiations.’

Although Ahn Cheol-soo did not explicitly state that he would return to unification talks only if Lee Hae-chan resigned, the political circles at the time widely believed that Lee Hae-chan’s resignation opened the way for unification negotiations.

One hour after Lee Hae-chan announced his resignation at 12:00 PM on November 18, at 1:00 PM, Ahn Cheol-soo held a press conference expressing his intention to return to unification negotiations. At that time, Ahn Cheol-soo said, “I do not forget Lee Hae-chan’s self-sacrifice and highly respect and honor it.”

At that time, Democratic Party candidate Moon Jae-in had to engage in unification negotiations while watching Lee Hae-chan’s departure.

Whether this situation served as a catalyst for candidate unification is uncertain, but considering the December 19 presidential election, it is questionable whether it worked in Moon Jae-in’s favor.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

The unification negotiations resumed one month before the presidential election were not smooth. The teams of candidates Moon Jae-in and Ahn Cheol-soo engaged in tedious negotiations. The emotional divide between their supporters deepened. During the 2012 presidential election, the Democratic Party showed cracks in its election strategy.

Criticism arose that only candidate Moon Jae-in was visible while Democratic Party lawmakers were not active. This was somewhat anticipated as the Supreme Council members resigned alongside Lee Hae-chan. An election held without a party leader showed its limitations.

Contrary to the Democratic Party’s expectations, the unification was not a guarantee of victory in the presidential election. After many twists and turns, the ‘Moon Jae-in?Ahn Cheol-soo’ candidate unification was achieved, but it was a glory marked only by wounds. The winner of the December 19, 2012 presidential election was Saenuri Party candidate Park Geun-hye.

Among the reasons why candidate Moon Jae-in lost the 2012 presidential election, the departure of the proven strategist, leader Lee Hae-chan, cannot be overlooked. During a major election like the presidential election, it can be difficult to see the broader political landscape while responding to daily emerging issues.

However, after the election, when reviewing the results, one can identify the ‘turning point of the election.’ It is the moment that was painful for the losing side and brought joy to the winning side. In the 2012 presidential election, that moment was Lee Hae-chan’s resignation on November 18.

What event will be recorded as the turning point in the 2022 presidential election? Watching how the candidates manage crisis situations is also a point of interest. If one finds a ‘moment of regret’ only after the election ends, wouldn’t the regret only grow?

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.