Lessons from Park Geun-hye’s impeachment
Published: 12 Jan. 2025, 20:00
Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI
Choi Hoon
The author is the senior columnist of JoongAng Ilbo.
On the day of March 10, 2017, we did not understand. We didn’t know why the single, piercing phrase from Constitutional Court Chief Justice Lee Jung-mi — “We remove President Park Geun-hye from office” — would be the only thing to linger in our collective memory. Nor did we grasp why the months that followed would be consumed entirely by investigations into the impeachment and detention of a head of state and the corruption of the nation’s political elite.
Public support for Park’s impeachment stood at a staggering 81 percent according to Gallup Korea. The fiery judgment of a nation — encapsulated in the rallying cry “Is this even a country?” — propelled Moon Jae-in to power with an initial approval rating of 84 percent. Yet, amid the dramatic spectacle of punishment and revenge, an emerging movement to dismantle the old regime and establish a more advanced national system failed to take root.
Moon’s administration, misinterpreting the 84 percent approval as a sweeping endorsement of its ideology, soon fell victim to the curse of winner-takes-all. Ideological pursuits such as the nuclear phaseout policy, income-led growth, punitive property taxes and a conciliatory approach to North Korea — one that did little more than solidify its nuclear arsenal — came to define his term. With 180 parliamentary seats and a judiciary led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Kim Myeong-su, who was dogged by accusations of being a political puppet, Moon wielded unchecked power with an air of hubris. Save for the contentious Moon Jae-in Care health care reforms, the administration left behind few memorable achievements, while the lingering aftermath of populism, relentless investigations and unbridled partisan appointments fractured the nation.
Yoon Suk-yeol, who rose to power fueled by public discontent with Moon’s arrogance and unilateralism, has fared no better in avoiding folly. His rushed eight-month ascent to the presidency was devoid of fundamental values such as respect for humanity, citizens and democracy and culminated in premature political demise. The president’s “rage” and unilateral orders regarding the investigation into the death of a Marine eventually led to the acquittal of the probe’s lead investigator, underscoring the dangers of impulsive leadership. Yoon’s “imperial presidency,” which sought to seize everything despite winning by a razor-thin 0.73 percent margin, unraveled with his declaration of martial law, a political act tantamount to self-immolation.
As the nation endures the polarizing spectacle of a president’s resistance to arrest, partisan impeachment efforts and unending political strife, we find ourselves once again staring into the mirror of March 2017. The solution to today’s crisis was, ironically, laid bare in the Constitutional Court’s impeachment ruling eight years ago: “The benefits of impeaching a president must far outweigh the national losses incurred by their removal.”
This principle resonates with the reflection expressed in a recent declaration by 420 Korean academics, who proclaimed, “The current crisis is not a collapse of democratic institutions but an opportunity to realize a more fundamental democracy.” There are two types of pain: one that leads only to despair and another that, when endured, paves the way for a better future. The Constitutional Court, in its 2017 ruling, urged the people and political leaders to use this moment of reckoning to prepare for such a future — a vision we tragically overlooked at the time.
The first step was to reform the 1987 Constitution. “Our Constitution granted the president the status of head of state, expecting strong leadership. Yet, this centralized power only alienated the president from the sovereign people. Absolute power corrupts absolutely,” the ruling stated. It called for a transition from an imperial presidency to a power-sharing system that fosters cooperation, transparency and fairness. Such a change, it emphasized, was essential to dismantling the structural flaws that had culminated in Park’s impeachment.
The Court offered concrete reforms: a dual executive system where the president handles foreign policy and the prime minister domestic affairs; a strengthened proportional representation system; a recall system for lawmakers and local leaders; requiring parliamentary consent for key appointments such as the heads of the National Intelligence Service, Prosecutors’ Office, and National Police; reducing the size of the Blue House; curbing presidential pardons; establishing a bicameral legislature with a Senate for national unity; and decentralizing power to local governments. More recently, proposals to introduce a presidential runoff system, ensuring majority support and fostering coalition-building, have gained traction.
A nation prospers by repeating good history and collapses by repeating bad history. South Korea faces the unprecedented prospect of two presidential impeachments within eight years — a grim testament to its political turmoil. A country that once led the world with a semiconductor “super gap” is now teetering on the edge of a “national gap.” A republic ruled by one is no republic at all.
In this moment of pain, there is but one goal: to create a new democratic republic where the people, rather than the president, are sovereign. Aspiring presidential candidates must embrace this ethos and rise above the rhetoric of impeachment. Eight years ago, why did we fail to see it, and how did we end up in a scenario where barbed wire encircles a president’s residence in a desperate bid to prevent their arrest?
Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.
Standards Board Policy (0/250자)