Let’s establish a transitional government

Home > Opinion > Columns

Let’s establish a transitional government

Published: 01 Apr. 2025, 00:01

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Kim Hwang-sik

The author is a former prime minister of Korea.

Each passing day feels suffocating, an unrelenting stretch of agony fueled by concern for the country. Since the declaration of martial law on Dec. 3 last year and the ensuing political maelstrom surrounding the president’s impeachment, Korea’s international standing has plummeted, and national opinion has fractured to the point of what can only be described as civil strife. Livelihoods are in crisis, and public confidence in the nation’s future is faltering. Yet political parties and leaders, who bear the responsibility of resolving these issues, remain preoccupied with clinging to or seizing power, placing national interests and the long-term good of the country far down their list of priorities. In the process, they mock the public with self-serving interpretations of the law and political reality.

A sign on a restaurant in Seoul notices its closure, as pictured in this photo taken March 25. Consumer confidence fell in March after three months of slowly recovering to November levels, according to the Bank of Korea on the same day. The index, used as an economic indicator for consumer spending and saving, dropped by 1.8 points from December. It had sharply dropped in December following following President Yoon Suk Yeol's botched declaration of martial law. [YONHAP]

Even if the Constitutional Court delivers its ruling on the impeachment and a snap presidential election is held with a decisive outcome, it is clear that Korea will not enter a new era of stability and unity. Instead, we are likely to descend into even deeper chaos. How did it come to this? A sober reflection is in order. We must recognize this moment as a turning point — a chance to transform crisis into opportunity. That transformation begins with constitutional reform.

The current Constitution was enacted in 1987, enshrining direct presidential elections and a single five-year term to prevent authoritarianism and long-term rule. It fulfilled its purpose at the time. But nearly four decades later, its historical function has run its course. The single-term limit has proven especially problematic. While a president wields considerable power early in the term, the inevitable “lame-duck” phase in the latter half hinders stable and sustained governance. Instead of pursuing a long-term vision, presidents are driven to chase short-term achievements before their time runs out.

With every change in administration — even when power remains with the same party — new governments have often chosen to discard the policies of their predecessors rather than build upon them. This pattern has stymied national cohesion, undermined credibility on the international stage and led to a waste of national resources. Even in cases of narrow electoral victories, the winner has monopolized authority, fueling division and conflict through zero-sum politics. As we’ve witnessed under the current administration — with a politically inexperienced president and a combative opposition controlling the legislature — this dysfunction only deepens. We can no longer delay constitutional reform aimed at overcoming these systemic flaws.

What should that reform look like? One option is to adopt a parliamentary system that aligns executive and legislative authority, ensuring responsible governance. Power would rest not with a single popular figure but with political parties competing on policy. Electoral reform would ensure that legislative representation more accurately reflects the public’s support for each party. If no party wins a majority, a coalition government — formed through negotiation and compromise — would govern. A capable prime minister could remain in office for over a decade; an inept one could be removed at any time.

If public distrust in party politics makes a parliamentary system unfeasible, we might consider a presidential or semi-presidential system that introduces effective checks on executive power. For instance, we could strip the president of the authority to appoint or dismiss the prime minister, empowering the National Assembly to nominate or elect the premier. A clear delineation of authority between the president and prime minister would prevent power from being concentrated in one office and enable more effective governance of today’s complex national agenda. The right pairing of president and prime minister could also help bridge generational, regional, and ideological divides — fostering much-needed social unity.

The sooner we revise the Constitution, the better. There is already a broad consensus that reform is necessary. Should President Yoon Suk Yeol return to office, he must honor his earlier pledge to shorten his term and initiate constitutional reform. If an early presidential election is held, candidates must make constitutional revision the highest priority. But campaign promises often vanish into thin air.

People opposed to President Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment hold a protest across the street from the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on March 19. [NEWS1]

That is why we must consider a transitional government — led by a politically neutral, nationally mandated administration — that governs responsibly, revises the Constitution within one year, and then steps aside. It is a bold idea, but perhaps the only way to avoid the disorder that is sure to follow another brutal, all-or-nothing presidential contest. And that is what I fear most.

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