End the era of the presidency once and for all

Home > Opinion > Columns

End the era of the presidency once and for all

Published: 21 Mar. 2025, 00:04

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Park Myung-lim
The author is a politics professor of Yonsei University.

The most fundamental principle when humanity first established democratic republics was the separation of powers. It marked a transition from one-man rule to majority rule, from governance by an individual to governance through institutions. Without adherence to this fundamental principle, the creation of a democratic republic would have been meaningless.

Having suffered the perils of one-man rule, humanity could not allow power to be concentrated in a single chief executive. This is why the terms for the highest administrative leader — translated as prime minister or chancellor — were all originally defined as “administrator,” “senior minister,” “CEO,” or “principal administrator.” Even the term “president,” as it is translated today, initially meant a presiding officer or coordinator. The president was merely the “chief citizen” or the “chief public servant.”

The first democratic republic was not initially referred to as a “presidential United States” but rather a “parliamentary United States.” A parliamentary state was synonymous with a “free republic.” The fact that early democratic republics were all called “free commonwealths” had a clear significance — citizens were free because they shared the common good, values and resources of their nation. In other words, the pursuit of the common good — the republic itself — was an essential prerequisite to human freedom.

President Yoon Suk-yeol takes the oath of office at his inauguration ceremony at the National Assembly Plaza in Yeouido, western Seoul, on May 10, 2022. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

Korea has adopted a U.S.-style system for both its Constitution and governmental structure. The initial translations of “president” in Korea, China and Japan included terms such as commander in chief, monarch, leader, chieftain and head of state, all of which carried monarchical connotations. One of the Japanese translations at the time — when Japan was still under an emperor system — was daetongryeong, a term that even attached the archaic, monarchic prefix dae (great) to tongryeong (commander), reflecting a regressive, anachronistic perspective.

At the time, within the context of the U.S. constitution and its political framework, the term president was a misinterpretation. It reflected the conceptual framework of an emperor system. It was in no way a product of modern civic, Republican or Democratic thought. Yet this retrogressive Japanese translation of “president” was imported into Korea through official documents, media and academic discourse. The first instance of this term appearing in the Constitution of the Republic of Korea was in 1919, and it has persisted for 80 years since liberation.

Today, we use “president” as a title for many leaders in the public and private sectors — corporate presidents, university presidents, and chairpersons — but never daehoejang (great chairman), daeuijang (great speaker), or daechongjang (great chancellor. Given that the prefix dae carries the connotation of absolute power, reverence and submission from the monarchical era, the use of “president” in this form is entirely inappropriate. Historically, the terms sovereign, ruler and monarch all carried dual meanings: the highest authority in both religious and political realms. They shared the same origin. Absolute doctrine and absolute rule demanded unconditional obedience.

In the 21st century, an era of civilization, enlightenment, democracy, republicanism, freedom, and autonomy, we must no longer allow the presidency to dominate our political consciousness and institutions. The title of the highest constitutional and institutional office must also change. It is time to decisively break away from the outdated notion and practice of the presidency. While maintaining the constitutional provision for electing the highest executive official, we must restore its original meaning and adopt a title befitting a democratic republic.

Instead of “president,” we should introduce a term that aligns with the principles of a democratic republic and addresses the reality of concentrated power in Korea. I propose “chief public officer” or “principal administrator.” The original meaning of “administrator” is “one who is responsible for a designated section of a building or office.” Thus, the term aligns with the fundamental principle of separation of powers, carries no connotation of power monopoly and, most importantly, does not imply absolute authority.

Acting President Choi Sang-mok, center, speaks during a Cabinet meeting at the government complex in central Seoul on March 4. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

Globally, the disparities between countries with separated powers and those with concentrated power are stark in terms of per capita GDP, quality of life and indicators of freedom, equality, social conflict and democracy. The former continue to advance while the latter stagnate or regress. This is because the separation of powers fosters rational compromise and pragmatism, breaking the vicious cycle of resistance and conflict that arises from monopolized rule. Rationality, pragmatism and progress are products of the freedom and creativity nurtured by the separation of powers.

Thus, the common feature of all major ideologies and practices aimed at establishing free republics was the abolition of supreme power. This was the defining criterion for determining whether a nation was truly a free republic. In Korea today, however, the presidency not only fails to abolish absolute power — it its very embodiment. Even presidential candidates are referred to as dae-gwon candidates, and political parties without a “great power” candidate struggle to survive. This stifles diversity and autonomy. It is the exact form of “elected autocracy” that the founding figures of democratic republics so gravely feared.

Above all, it is a great embarrassment that we continue to support and follow a one-man authority system in both our political consciousness and reality, all while remaining trapped in the erroneous terminology of “president” — a mistranslation borrowed from another nation. As proud democratic citizens of the world, we should be ashamed. It is time to end the era of monopolized power and conflict under the presidency and usher in an era of pluralistic, autonomous governance under a new title. A new reality and a new era demand new ways of thinking and new language.

Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.