[Wang Son-taek] Presidential communication and balance

President Lee Jae Myung has made clear his determination to communicate more frequently with the public through social media. He recently dismissed criticism that frequent social media posts undermine presidential dignity or authority, emphasizing his commitment to remaining close to ordinary citizens. His determination deserves recognition. The question is not whether a president should use social media, but how frequently, for what purposes and in what manner.

Direct communication offers considerable advantages. Traditional communication channels involve intermediaries, including journalists, government officials and presidential aides. Messages can be delayed, distorted or misunderstood along the way. Social media allows a president to explain his intentions directly, respond quickly to emerging issues and receive immediate public feedback. For a president frustrated by bureaucratic delays or inaccurate reporting, this direct channel can be particularly satisfying. Yet the advantages of direct communication should not obscure its limitations. More communication does not necessarily mean effective communication.

The first problem concerns the structural characteristics of social media. Unlike conventional mass media, social media platforms do not necessarily reach a representative cross-section of the population. Their audiences are shaped by followers, algorithms and patterns of engagement. Those who respond most actively are often enthusiastic supporters or determined opponents. Their reactions cannot automatically be regarded as representative of public opinion. A president who relies excessively on such responses risks mistaking intense political engagement for the broader national mood.

This distinction matters because a president occupies a fundamentally different position from an ordinary politician. Other politicians compete for support and mobilize their followers. Once elected, however, a president must work for the entire population, including those who voted against him. A president has no reason to favor supporters unnecessarily or treat opponents as enemies. His responsibility is to manage competing interests, reduce unnecessary conflict and promote national cohesion. Social media, by contrast, often rewards confrontation, emotional reactions and political polarization. Some features of its operating logic can therefore conflict with the responsibilities of presidential leadership.

The second problem is potentially more consequential: excessive presidential involvement in detailed policy decisions. A president should establish national priorities, present broad policy directions and make decisions requiring presidential authority. Detailed policy formulation and implementation, however, should generally remain the responsibility of ministers and other senior officials. When a president publicly expresses a firm opinion on a specific issue, this process can become considerably more difficult. Setting broad goals is an essential presidential duty; prescribing detailed solutions before ministers have examined alternatives, however, can undermine the very expertise and accountability government needs.

In South Korea's hierarchical political culture, ministers may find it especially difficult to question or modify a presidential position. Stakeholders, including rivals of high-ranking officials, may also invoke presidential statements to criticize government approaches. The result may be weakened ministerial discretion and excessive concentration of responsibility in the presidency. A modern government confronts thousands of complicated policy challenges. No president, however capable, can personally manage them all. Even exceptionally talented leaders face limitations in attention, expertise and time.

This suggests what might be called the 100 CEOs Theory: A president leads 100 capable executives, each managing 100 major tasks, collectively addressing 10,000 national challenges. Rather than personally managing every issue, the president should empower these leaders and hold them accountable. Presidential performance depends less on how many issues he handles than on how effectively he selects, empowers and coordinates the nation’s top decision-makers.

The third problem concerns political conflict and the weight of presidential statements. Opposition parties naturally scrutinize presidential remarks and challenge government decisions. Such criticism is a legitimate feature of democracy. Nevertheless, frequent presidential comments on contentious issues can provide unnecessary opportunities for partisan confrontation. A president need not become a direct participant in every political dispute. He should generally remain above routine partisan exchanges, intervene when necessary and encourage compromise where possible.

There is also the question of presidential authority. Authority does not depend on avoiding social media or maintaining ceremonial distance from citizens. Lee is right to reject that outdated assumption. Presidential authority depends instead on judgment, restraint and the significance of presidential words and decisions. When a president comments frequently on matters of varying importance, the distinction between major national decisions and ordinary political observations may become blurred.

Presidential messages also reach foreign governments, investors and international audiences. A statement intended for domestic consumption could be interpreted as an official diplomatic signal. Careful wording and coordination are therefore essential, particularly on foreign policy and national security matters.

None of these concerns justifies abandoning social media. The appropriate response is to establish a more balanced communication strategy. Presidential communication can be organized around three broad channels: mass media, including journalistic media, social media and personal media. These categories sometimes overlap, but each serves a distinct communication function.

Journalistic media, a segment of mass media encompassing newspapers, television news and news agencies, remains indispensable for explaining policies, answering difficult questions and engaging with public criticism. Regular press conferences and substantive interviews are essential elements of democratic accountability.

Social media is particularly useful for timely announcements, messages of congratulations or sympathy, expressions of solidarity and explanations of major policy directions. It should complement other channels rather than dominate presidential communication.

Personal media, including letters, telephone conversations, meetings and communication through representatives, can address specific concerns and build deeper relationships.

Ministers, spokespersons and presidential aides should actively communicate on the president's behalf. Indeed, effective presidential communication does not require the president to personally deliver every message. Delegating communication responsibilities can strengthen both administrative accountability and public understanding.

Lee's commitment to greater communication is quite welcome. The next step should be to improve the balance among communication channels, allowing each to perform its proper function. A president should not communicate less. He should communicate more effectively, through the right channels, at the right time.

- - -

Wang Son-taek

Wang Son-taek is an adjunct professor at Sogang University. He is a former diplomatic correspondent at YTN and a former research associate at Yeosijae. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. — Ed.