Now is the time to demand constitutional reform
Published: 20 Jan. 2025, 00:01

The author is the former dean of Seoul National University Law School, a Constitution Scholar and a Reset Korea Steering Committee Member.
In 1987, the nation hoped to transition to a functioning democracy under a new constitution that would mark the end of authoritarian rule. Citizens believed that by focusing on their chosen endeavors, they could live happily in a better society. Yet, not a single president has completed their term with success or public applause. Three former presidents faced impeachment trials, and whether in office or retired, each seemed to be in constant anxiety, evading potential capture.
While Korea claims to be democratized, a closer examination reveals only a superficial transformation. State power remains concentrated, and the mindset and actions of those involved in politics and governance lack democratic principles. The roots of these problems lie in the “imperial presidency,” and there is little hope of rectifying these issues simply by changing the individual in office. Elections, whether for the presidency or the National Assembly, have devolved into gladiatorial contests, with growing numbers of participants and supporters relishing the spectacle of opponents being brought down.
Whenever a new administration takes office, it has become habitual to overturn previous policies, leaving citizens who trusted in government policies to suffer significant losses. While effective political and governmental operations could propel advancements in areas like the economy, science, technology and culture, Korea, under the failing framework of the 1987 system, is sliding into collective decline.
Where should reform begin to address these issues? A broad consensus has emerged, even among those active in politics since democratization, that Korea is not functioning as a normal state. The call for reforming the 1987 constitutional framework stems from its role as the root cause of national failure.
The ultimate solution lies in decentralizing state power to complete the democratic process. Decentralization involves vertical and horizontal power distribution — between the central and local governments and within the central government itself. Vertical decentralization demands robust local autonomy, akin to federalism, necessitating administrative reorganization. Horizontal decentralization, meanwhile, could involve adopting a parliamentary system or a decentralized presidential system.
In a decentralized presidential system, the president would serve a four-year renewable term, directly elected by the people to ensure accountability. The president would primarily act as the head of state. Meanwhile, the National Assembly’s majority would appoint a prime minister, who would serve as the head of government, nominating cabinet members and managing the administration. The president could retain authority to appoint ministers overseeing defense and foreign affairs. The prime minister and other ministers could also be appointed from outside the legislature. In cases of direct confrontation between the executive branch and the legislature, the public would mediate through constructive votes of no confidence or parliamentary dissolution, with the president dissolving the assembly at the prime minister’s request. A new general election would then determine the composition of the legislature and, consequently, the government.
Such constitutional reform would align naturally with a multiparty system, medium- and large-sized electoral districts, expanded regional proportional representation, party normalization, easier party formation and the emergence of regional parties. The system could also allow for continuous improvements based on real-world feedback. As in Germany, amendments affecting citizens’ rights and freedoms could require a national referendum, while political system reforms could be passed with a two-thirds majority in the legislature, streamlining the amendment process.
A constitutional reform surpassing the 1987 system could be finalized through a referendum during the 2026 local elections or around the 2028 general election to synchronize four-year terms. Even if the reforms are not applied to the next president but to the one following, systemic change must proceed. The repeated national crises caused by confrontations between an aggressive National Assembly and the president under the current system demonstrate that failure to innovate governance will doom the nation’s future. Now is the time for citizens to demand constitutional reform. The Republic of Korea belongs to its people, and sovereignty rests with them.
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)