For nearly a decade, I have watched the deterioration of democracy around the world with growing concern. Since around 2015, when I was a Washington correspondent, I have witnessed growing threats to democracy in many countries including the United States. Political leaders have exploited weaknesses in democratic institutions for personal or political gain. At times, I even wondered whether democracy was truly the best political system humanity had developed. However, three recent elections in the United States, Brazil and Israel have given me renewed hope. They have reminded me of democracy's remarkable capacity to correct its own mistakes.
The US midterm elections on Nov. 3 offered the example. American voters delivered a severe blow to President Trump, handing Democrats control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The results reflected widespread dissatisfaction with the administration's policies, particularly the rising cost of living and the war with Iran.
Trump's aggressive tariff policies may have increased government revenue and offered protection to domestic industries, but they also imposed additional costs on American consumers. The administration pursued these policies despite warnings about the inflationary consequences. The war with Iran compounded these difficulties. The Trump administration launched military operations without presenting a convincing strategy for achieving a lasting political settlement. Previous administrations had preferred negotiations to a full-scale war, recognizing the enormous risks involved. Yet Trump chose military confrontation, and the United States has struggled with its consequences. In October, gasoline prices averaged approximately $4.45 per gallon, while diesel prices exceeded $6.20, adding to the burden on households and businesses.
American voters appear to have used the midterm elections to express their dissatisfaction. What makes this interesting is the changing relationship between Trump and the electorate. Americans elected him in 2016, rejected his reelection bid in 2020, and gave him another opportunity in 2024. Just two years later, they imposed a significant political setback. The sequence illustrates how democratic elections allow citizens to reconsider earlier judgments and restrain elected leaders.
Brazil's presidential election provided another encouraging example. Conservative candidate Flavio Bolsonaro surprised observers by finishing first in the opening round despite serious allegations surrounding his political and financial conduct. His performance demonstrated the enduring influence of the Bolsonaro political movement and the deep divisions within Brazilian society.
However, the runoff election produced a different result. President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva secured approximately 51.8 percent of the vote, defeating Bolsonaro, who received about 48.2 percent. Bolsonaro subsequently fled Brazil for the United States amid legal investigations, while denying wrongdoing. His departure raised further questions about political accountability.
The Brazilian election was significant because voters had another opportunity to examine the candidates and reconsider their choices. The runoff did not eliminate Brazil's political divisions, but it demonstrated that electoral institutions can provide an additional opportunity for public judgment. I respect the Brazilian people's exercise of that democratic right.
Israel's general election offered a third example, although its political outcome remains uncertain. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's political bloc failed to secure the 61 seats required for a parliamentary majority. His rival, Gadi Eisenkot, also lacked a majority within his own bloc, but President Isaac Herzog entrusted him with forming a new government.
Netanyahu has faced corruption charges and a prolonged criminal trial. His government's conduct of the continuing wars has also generated questions about whether political survival and personal legal interests have influenced national security decisions. Such suspicions require careful examination rather than automatic acceptance. Nevertheless, the election has opened a possible path toward political change. Eisenkot may struggle to assemble a governing coalition. Yet the election has already demonstrated that even a crafty political veteran can face meaningful institutional constraints.
South Korea showed another important example. Following former President Yoon Suk Yeol's insurrection in December 2024, citizens and democratic institutions responded through constitutional procedures. The National Assembly voted down the emergency measures, the Constitutional Court removed Yoon from office, and voters elected a new president in June 2025. In February 2026, a criminal court convicted Yoon of leading an insurrection and sentenced him to life imprisonment, although appeals remain pending. These developments demonstrate how civic determination, elections and judicial institutions can work together to defend democracy.
Democracy is among humanity's greatest achievements, developed through centuries of political experimentation, conflict and reform. Yet its weaknesses have long been recognized. Plato warned that democracy could degenerate into mob rule, allowing demagogues to manipulate public opinion and undermine responsible government. Recent political developments have sometimes made his warning appear remarkably relevant.
Nevertheless, the latest elections suggest that democracy possesses a strength that its critics underestimate. Democracy does not guarantee that citizens will always choose the best leaders. Nor does it prevent elected leaders from abusing their authority. Its distinctive strength lies in providing opportunities to recognize mistakes, reconsider previous decisions and correct them through peaceful institutional procedures.
That capacity, however, does not operate automatically. Elections alone cannot guarantee democratic recovery. Citizens must remain informed, examine the performance of their leaders, resist manipulation and exercise their political rights. Independent courts, responsible legislatures, free media and active civil society must also fulfill their responsibilities. Without sustained public commitment, democratic institutions can become empty shells.
South Korea should actively participate in international efforts to strengthen democracy. This does not mean presenting itself as a model of democratic superiority or lecturing other countries. Korea has experienced its own democratic failures and painful struggles. Precisely because of those experiences, it can share lessons while learning from others.
The recent elections have restored some of my confidence in democracy's future. They do not prove that every democratic crisis will end successfully. But they remind us that political mistakes need not become permanent disasters. We need to remember that democracy provides an opportunity for correction, and it is the people who must make the correction happen. That is the source of my renewed hope and the responsibility we must never forget.
- - -
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.
khnews@heraldcorp.com
