Lee, Party Chiefs Agree on Bipartisan Economic Council

President Lee Jae-myung, Democratic Party Leader Jung Chung-rae, and People Power Party Leader Jang Dong-hyuk agreed on Sept. 8 to establish a Council for Economic Livelihood during a luncheon meeting. Chief spokesmen for both parties announced the agreement after the session, noting that President Lee and Jung accepted Jang’s proposal. The new council is expected to focus on shared campaign pledges, discussing issues such as youth employment, abolishing breach of trust charges, shareholder taxation thresholds for major stockholders, and revitalizing local construction markets. President Lee reportedly described the agreement as mutually beneficial, saying, “It benefits the opposition while ensuring governance success for the ruling party.”

After the one-hour-20-minute luncheon, President Lee held his first 30-minute one-on-one meeting with Jang. He said, “It is truly undesirable for the ruling and opposition parties to clash excessively in the public eye,” adding that he would go beyond simply listening to the opposition and strive to ensure that all citizens’ voices are fairly reflected in governance. The meeting also featured a symbolic moment as Jung, who had refused even a formal introduction with the People Power Party for over a month after being elected leader, smiled and shook hands with Jang for the first time.

During the private meeting, Jang expressed concerns over the potential abolition of the prosecution office, and President Lee reportedly assured him that opposition views would be adequately considered. However, the two sides failed to find common ground on highly contentious issues, including the extension of the three special counsels and the establishment of a special tribunal for insurrection. When Jang requested that Lee exercise his veto on the two bills, the president did not respond.

The meeting occurred amid a political deadlock marked by persistent confrontations between the ruling and opposition parties. It was initiated by President Lee, who accepted Jang’s request for a private discussion, allowing the session to take place. During the meeting, Lee actively listened to opposition opinions, and the two party leaders, who were long at odds, showed a willingness to at least recognize each other as conversation partners. The session provided a minimal but significant opening for shifting the political standoff from confrontation to dialogue.

The key question is whether this tentative sign of change will translate into actual bipartisan cooperation rather than remaining symbolic. Soon after taking office, President Lee proposed implementing shared pledges with opposition leaders. Although both parties later agreed to launch the Council for Economic Livelihood, the initiative stalled over the following two months amid ongoing political clashes. On Sept. 8, Lee and the party leaders agreed on the need for a “channel for communication.” Future three-party meetings should serve as a functional conduit to break political gridlock. Only then can the faint hope for political restoration avoid being dismissed as merely another symbolic gesture.