Lee Hong-koo, a distinguished elder statesman and scholar of South Korea, passed away on May 5, 2026, at the age of 92.
He played a significant role in South Korea's modern history, contributing to academia, politics, and diplomacy. Born in 1934 in Kaesong, he attended Gyeonggi High School and Seoul National University, later studying at Emory University and Yale University. After returning to Korea, he served as a professor of political science at Seoul National University for 20 years. He held various key positions, including Minister of National Unification under the Roh Tae-woo administration, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Unification and Prime Minister under the Kim Young-sam administration, and Ambassador to the United States under the Kim Dae-jung administration, making him a rare figure who was trusted by all three governments following democratization.
His passing signifies more than the loss of a former prime minister; it marks the departure of a scholar who maintained the dignity of public discourse and a sense of balance in governance as South Korea navigated through industrialization, democratization, division, the Cold War, globalization, and financial crises.
Lee Hong-koo's identity is difficult to encapsulate in a single phrase. He was a scholar, diplomat, prime minister, politician, and writer, but above all, he was a gentleman who upheld the dignity of public language. He was not a politician who raised his voice to overpower others, nor was he a combative figure. His words resonated because they were rooted in scholarship, moderation, and a profound consideration for the nation.
As a prominent scholar, he taught Western political thought at Seoul National University, covering topics from Plato to the social contract theory, liberalism, and democracy. His lectures were described as intellectual dramas, filled with vigor and scholarly elegance, demonstrating that politics is not merely a struggle for power but a discipline that questions the fate of humanity and communities.
Lee's life was intertwined with both grand historical events and personal connections. His father's birthplace was Odae-ri in Sangju, Gyeongsangbuk-do. The fact that a man born in Kaesong, who studied at Yale and walked through the halls of power in Seoul and Washington, had humble roots in Sangju serves as a reminder that his life was not just a record of power and positions but a long journey intertwined with family, hometown, roots, and memories.
As a professor at Seoul National University for two decades, he laid the foundation for political science in Korea. Earning a Ph.D. in political science from Yale, he was a rare intellectual capable of interpreting Western political thought alongside the realities of Korean politics. During a time when Korean society was grappling with the aftermath of war, authoritarianism, the Cold War, division, industrialization, and democratization, political science was not merely theoretical; it was a practical discipline questioning how to build a nation, control power, and harmonize freedom and order. Lee's political science was precisely at this intersection.
He entered public service in 1988 with the Roh Tae-woo administration, serving as Minister of National Unification. He viewed inter-Korean relations not merely as ideological confrontations but as opportunities to rethink the long-term and gradual restructuring of order on the Korean Peninsula. His proposal for a 'Korean Commonwealth' later became the backbone of the inter-Korean unification plan.
The inter-Korean unification plan announced in 1989 is one of his most significant legacies. It advocated for a gradual and peaceful unification based on the three principles of independence, peace, and democracy, moving beyond the logic of confrontation and absorption.
Importantly, this was not a unilateral vision but a unification policy developed through consensus between the ruling and opposition parties.
This reveals Lee's political philosophy. He did not speak of unification in incendiary terms, nor did he consume it as a radical slogan. Instead, he sought to design unification through the language of institutions, agreements, peace, and democracy. Aware of the pain of division, he was not impatient, and while believing in the necessity of unification, he did not ignore reality. This was the strength of a scholar turned public servant. He prioritized structure over emotion, institutions over slogans, and consensus over confrontation.
Under the Kim Young-sam administration, he was again appointed as Minister of Unification and Deputy Prime Minister, eventually becoming Prime Minister in December 1994. This was a tumultuous period for the civilian government, tasked with establishing democratic institutions following military authoritarianism, promoting globalization, and managing both the potential and crises in inter-Korean relations. Notably, a summit between the two Koreas was nearly realized in 1994 but was thwarted by the sudden death of Kim Il-sung, a moment that could have marked a significant turning point in modern Korean history.
For Lee, the prime ministership was not merely an honor. He had to manage the national tragedy of the Sampoong Department Store collapse. His swift response to the disaster, rushing to the scene upon hearing the news during an official dinner, demonstrated that he did not merely speak of responsibility. Reflecting on his tenure, he remarked, “I feel more responsibility than achievement.” This statement encapsulates his view of public service: it is a position of accountability before being a place of prestige. Power is not merely to be exercised but to be shouldered.
Lee entered politics in 1996 as a representative of the New Korea Party and became a member of the 15th National Assembly. He also ran in the presidential primaries but withdrew midway, realizing the high barriers of realpolitik. He expressed a desire to discuss policies but lamented that political competition often prioritized party allegiance over the merits of policies. This sentiment remains relevant today, as contemporary Korean politics often leans more towards factionalism, attacks, and electoral calculations than on policy debates. Thus, Lee's failure was not merely a personal setback; it highlighted how difficult it has been for Korean politics to embrace dignified policy competition.
After the inauguration of the Kim Dae-jung administration, Lee was once again called to serve the nation. In the wake of the financial crisis, South Korea urgently needed to restore its international credibility. President Kim Dae-jung asked him to serve as Ambassador to the United States, a politically challenging choice. However, he prioritized the nation's needs over personal discomfort. Although he was a representative of a conservative party, he accepted the role in a progressive government, placing the country above party interests. This aspect truly reflects the stature of Lee Hong-koo. He was able to serve in all three administrations after democratization—Roh Tae-woo, Kim Young-sam, and Kim Dae-jung—because he possessed trust that transcended party lines, a sense of balance in governance, and the ability to set aside personal interests in times of crisis.
Lee's conservatism was not narrow or factional; it was characterized by dignity, moderation, and institutional integrity. He sought to base politics on rationality rather than anger, to mediate conflicts rather than exacerbate them, and to emphasize responsibility over ideological excess. In today's polarized political landscape, his brand of conservatism stands out. True conservatism is not about clinging to the past but about safeguarding institutions and responsibilities to prevent the community from collapsing. Lee embodied this principle as a politician.
Even after leaving public office, he remained active, serving as an advisor to the JoongAng Ilbo and writing the 'Lee Hong-koo Column,' providing dignified insights on political issues, inter-Korean relations, and foreign affairs. Through the Seoul International Forum, he offered alternatives to international and security issues. He remained a scholar until the end, a knowledgeable voice, and a respected elder in discussions.
He particularly emphasized decentralization and dialogue, believing that distributing the excessive powers concentrated in the presidency would enhance the nation's overall capacity. This was not merely a call for constitutional reform but a vision to strengthen democracy through the moderation of power and the distribution of responsibility. He trusted sustainable institutions over strong leaders and valued institutional balance over individual goodwill. This conclusion arose from both his scholarly intuition and his experiences in public office.
Lee Hong-koo was a rare type of leader. He transitioned from academia to politics without losing his scholarly integrity, held a central position of power without sacrificing his dignity, and engaged in party politics while maintaining the balance of a national elder. He lacked the harsh rhetoric of incitement but possessed a deep persuasive language. He did not adopt an authoritarian demeanor but instead exhibited a listening attitude. He embodied the restraint of a scholar rather than the ruthlessness of a competitor.
Today, we are not merely bidding farewell to an individual politician; we are parting with an era of political civility. He stood quietly yet responsibly at various positions as South Korea traversed the paths of war and division, authoritarianism and democratization, the Cold War and post-Cold War, financial crises and globalization. He consistently sought to maintain balance and consider the long-term sustainability of the nation.
The life of the late Lee Hong-koo poses profound questions for today's politics: What is politics? What should power be used for? Can ideology take precedence over the community? Are words weapons that wound people, or bridges that persuade society?
Lee Hong-koo's life quietly answers these questions. Politics is the art of managing conflict, power is a position of responsibility, and ideology should be a tool for the nation, not a weapon that divides it. Words become public discourse only when they retain their dignity.
Born in Kaesong, educated at Yale, teaching at Seoul National University, and traversing the Blue House, Prime Minister's Office, and embassies to the realms of media and forums, his life was ultimately a long journey of a single individual. At the end of this journey, we remember the magnitude of dignity over power, the depth of responsibility over position, and the refinement of public language over political victories.
Lee Hong-koo has now departed from our midst. However, the dignity of his public language, the attitude of rationalism, the faith in institutions, and the politics of responsibility that prioritized the nation will endure. In an era of division, his restraint is missed, and in a noisy age, his calm voice is longed for. He was not a loud voice in the political arena but a steady presence at every historical juncture.
The eternal gentleman, former Prime Minister Lee Hong-koo. We pay deep respect to the life of the late scholar, public servant, diplomat, and elder statesman.
May he rest in peace.
Our condolences.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.