A constitutional amendment to rein in runaway power

Home > Opinion > Columns

A constitutional amendment to rein in runaway power

Published: 31 Mar. 2025, 00:03

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Jaung Hoon

The author is an emeritus professor at Chung-Ang University and a columnist for the JoongAng Ilbo.

A mix of anxious anticipation and hope-tinged unease hangs over the Constitutional Court. Depending on how the justices rule, power politics could be jolted once again — and the path ahead remains deeply uncertain. One thing, however, is clear: there is no going back to the world as it was before Dec. 3 martial law declaration.

The 1987 system — anchored in an imperial presidency and endless antagonism between the president and opposition — effectively died on the night of Dec. 3, last year. We are now living in a post-1987 reality.

Following the constitutional crisis triggered on Dec. 3, a wave of proposals for constitutional reform has emerged, all aimed at forging a new political order. In this context, I would like to revisit two key areas of constitutional debate: the need to constitutionally define “policy domains of cooperative governance” to prevent presidential overreach, and the introduction of mechanisms to make legislative power more accountable to the people.

Let us begin with the first issue — establishing a constitutional space for cooperative governance as a means to control the unchecked power of the presidency. The 1987 Constitution made various attempts to curtail presidential dominance, but those efforts have clearly failed. Proposed alternatives have included splitting executive powers through a semi-presidential system or reducing the presidential term.

But is dividing authority or shortening the term truly enough? Would trimming the presidency and transferring more power to the prime minister and Cabinet be sufficient to rein in the Leviathan — the embodiment of absolute power?

What we need now is not just to shrink presidential power but to fundamentally alter the way it operates. As seen in President Moon Jae-in’s nuclear phase-out policy and President Yoon Suk Yeol’s attempted healthcare reform, a five-year presidency gives too much leeway for a leader to wield sweeping authority over long-term national issues.

A viable alternative would be to designate certain major national agendas — such as those with profound and lasting impact on the community — as “cooperative governance domains.” The Constitution should stipulate that these policies can only move forward with a three-fifths supermajority agreement between the president and the National Assembly and further require civic deliberation and consensus from a public consultation body.

Every president, upon election, is inevitably drawn toward the temptation of unchecked power. The pride of being the only national figure elected by direct vote, combined with the encouragement of those around them, seduces presidents into a Leviathan-like dream — as described by Thomas Hobbes in “Leviathan” (1651): “There is no power on earth to be compared to him.”

An official from the conservative People Power Party, left, holds up a sign calling for President Yoon Suk Yeol's reinstatement, while a member of the liberal Democratic Party, right, holds up a sign calling for his removal from office in front of the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on March 23. [NEWS1]

In chasing that dream, presidents often disregard long-term vision and real-world constraints, diving headfirst into massive undertakings. The failures of the Moon administration’s nuclear energy policy and the Yoon administration’s healthcare reform stand as stark examples of how such rushed mega-projects can end in disaster.

The healthcare reform, in particular, was hastily and unilaterally pursued, resulting in internal conflict within the medical community, growing distrust between the government and healthcare workers, and financial strain on top-tier hospitals — all without resolving the underlying issues.

The new Constitution must clearly define national energy transitions, pension reform, and healthcare overhauls as areas requiring both legislative consensus and civic participation. These must not be left to the discretion of a single administration.

The second issue is this: while constitutional reform discussions have mostly focused on checking the imperial presidency, the president is not the only one wielding unaccountable power. As seen in the 22nd National Assembly’s reckless push for impeachment and unruly legislation, the legislature is equally prone to abuse.

The idea that a strong National Assembly can check a strong president was a defining tenet of the 1987 system — and it failed. Though the Assembly has impeached three sitting presidents, its members have never truly been held accountable to voters in any sustained way.

The new Constitution must empower citizens to monitor and restrain legislative power as well.

To ensure democratic accountability, reforms should include a recall mechanism for lawmakers; the establishment of a “Future Committee” within the National Assembly composed of generational representatives to review bills with long-term fiscal consequences; and term limits that cap local district lawmakers to three consecutive terms.

Of course, we should not expect constitutional reform to instantly resolve all the flaws of the 1987 system. But in the wake of the profound sense of crisis, helplessness, and disillusionment many citizens felt over the past three months, the public now recognizes this may be our last chance for real political change.

Police officers flank the gates of the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on Feb. 21. [NEWS1]

Meeting the people’s urgent demand for reform is the duty of professional politicians.

If they continue to neglect that duty, the public may eventually give up on representative democracy altogether. In its place, they might embrace a new form of politics — one led by artificial intelligence, endowed with cold logic and access to vast information.

After all, wasn’t the Leviathan of the early modern era — the absolute state — in some ways humanity’s first artificially engineered intelligence system?

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