Who stole ‘democratic legitimacy’?

Home > Opinion > Columns

Who stole ‘democratic legitimacy’?

Published: 27 Mar. 2025, 00:01

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Kim Seung-hyun

The author is the national news director at the JoongAng Ilbo.

Perhaps the feeling I have should be called heonta — a play on the Korean slang hyeonta (short for “reality check time”), but with a twist. Watching the unfolding saga of the Dec. 3 martial law controversy and the recent Constitutional Court rulings, I’ve come to think of this emotional jolt as heonta, short for “constitutional awakening time.” If hyeonta describes the hollow sensation of realizing the world is far from your ideals, then heonta is the disillusionment that comes from confronting the chasm between the Constitution and reality.

That sense hit me while reading the Constitutional Court’s decision on the impeachment trial of Prime Minister Han Duck-soo. The term “democratic legitimacy,” used prominently in the ruling, was what triggered it. The justices invoked the concept to explain why the office of the president holds far greater significance than that of an acting president. This was the reasoning behind their conclusion that the National Assembly doesn’t need the same supermajority (two-thirds of all members, or 200 votes) to impeach an acting president as it does for a sitting president; a simple majority (151 votes) would suffice.

In the majority opinion, passed 6–2, the court stated: “Compared to the democratic legitimacy directly conferred upon the president by the people, the prime minister possesses only a significantly reduced, indirect form of democratic legitimacy, even when acting as interim head of state.” The dissenting justices, however, also based their argument on democratic legitimacy. They contended: “As the prime minister is appointed by the president with the consent of the National Assembly — another body representing the people — the weight of democratic legitimacy is not insignificant. Therefore, the impeachment of a prime minister serving as acting president should be approached with the same caution as that of a sitting president.”

Prime Minister Han Duck-soo delivers a public address at the government complex in Jongno District, central Seoul, on Dec. 26, 2024. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

So what exactly is this standard called democratic legitimacy, which is now being used to delineate the powers of the president and the prime minister? Vaguely pointing to the source of political authority, it is ultimately derived from the principle of popular sovereignty. According to Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea: “Sovereignty resides in the people, and all state authority emanates from the people.” Constitutional law textbooks explain it this way: “State power, established under the principle of popular sovereignty, must be legitimized by the sovereign — the people.” It is through the ballot box that both the president and the National Assembly are vested with power. The real holder of democratic legitimacy is none other than us — the people. And yet, we seem to have forgotten that in a democratic republic, we are the ultimate authority.

The phrase “democratic legitimacy” has become a catchphrase in the ongoing martial law controversy. President Yoon Suk Yeol brought it up during his final argument at the Constitutional Court last month, stating: “The democratic legitimacy of a directly elected president carries a different weight than that of other elected officials,” and adding, “For the opposition to seek the downfall of a president — a symbol of democratic legitimacy — is an unconstitutional act.” On the declaration of martial law, he said it was “a desperate appeal to the people — the sovereigns — to step up in overcoming the national crisis.”

And yet, for all the talk of democratic legitimacy, the very people in whom sovereignty resides were left stunned, even enraged. It was as if the tenant — granted a five-year lease — had turned around and treated the landlord as a freeloader. One might say our democratic legitimacy has been stolen.

Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung, center, speaks to reporters at the Seoul High Court in Seocho District, southern Seoul, on March 26, after the court acquitted him on all counts of lying during his last presidential campaign. [YONHAP]

Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party, isn’t much different. Despite facing numerous legal troubles, he mentioned the presidential immunity clause as if anticipating his own future. “The term ‘prosecution’ (sochu) consists of so, meaning indictment, and chu, meaning the act of pursuing a lawsuit,” he said. “So the prevailing view is that criminal proceedings are suspended during a presidential term.” In other words, if one is elected president before a conviction, ongoing trials would be halted, allowing him to serve his term uninterrupted.

Such a casual take on such an extraordinary privilege betrays a disregard for its true meaning. Presidential immunity is not about placing legality beneath legitimacy, but about elevating the latter only when it is indisputably earned — through the people’s vote. To assume the protection of legitimacy without having secured it is to overlook the very idea of popular sovereignty. It’s like faking a residential address before signing a lease with the landlord.

This battered and bruised concept of democratic legitimacy will no doubt feature prominently in the Constitutional Court’s upcoming decision on President Yoon’s impeachment. For the many citizens who receive an outcome they did not want, it may even become a rallying cry for defiance. And once again, I find myself gripped by heonta — wondering how the sovereignty of the people has become so twisted, so lost.

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