Home > Opinion > Columns

Democratic Party's attack on the judiciary crosses a dangerous line

Published: 06 May. 2025, 00:02

Kang Won-taek

The author is a professor of political science and international relations at Seoul National University.

Following the Supreme Court’s recent decision to return Democratic Party (DP) candidate Lee Jae-myung’s election law case to the lower court with instructions favoring a guilty verdict, the party’s attacks on the judiciary have escalated sharply. While the DP's frustration may be understandable given the impact on their presidential front-runner, its response is deeply troubling for the health of Korea’s democracy.

The situation turned particularly alarming when the party floated the idea of impeaching Chief Justice Jo Hee-de simply because the court did not rule in its favor. Although the party has since deferred a decision on impeachment, the move echoed its surprise attempt to impeach Deputy Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok earlier this month. The Democratic Party has already succeeded in sidelining senior officials across the executive branch — including the president, prime minister, ministers and prosecutor general. It now appears willing to extend that practice to the judiciary.

People Power Party lawmakers protest against National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik, who is proposing the impeachment of Minister of Economy and Finance Choi Sang-mok at a plenary session held at the National Assembly in Yeouido, western Seoul, on May 1. [NEWS1]

This pattern reveals a disturbing tendency: When decisions do not align with the party’s political interests, those in power are removed by force of the legislative majority. It is a clear abuse of authority, showing little regard for the principle of separation of powers or for democratic restraint.

The DP's offensive did not stop with impeachment threats. It also proposed a revision to the Court Organization Act that would expand the number of Supreme Court justices from the current 14 to 30. The timing of the bill — introduced just after the court’s ruling — suggests it was prepared in anticipation of an unfavorable outcome. The intention appears clear: If the DP wins the presidency, it could appoint 16 new justices sympathetic to its agenda.

Such a move would seriously compromise the independence of the judiciary. A politically tailored bench risks producing rulings influenced more by presidential preference than legal reasoning. Combined with the party’s legislative power, this would effectively consolidate all three branches of government under a single authority — a collapse of the democratic framework into a de facto concentration of power.

This is not a theoretical concern. Recent democratic backsliding in countries such as Hungary and Poland began in much the same way. Both were once seen as democratic leaders in post-socialist Eastern Europe. But today, they serve as cautionary tales.

In Hungary, the Fidesz party under Viktor Orban secured a constitutional majority in the 2010 general election. It used that majority to rewrite the constitution, expanding the Constitutional Court from 11 to 15 judges and changing the appointment process so that parliament, controlled by Fidesz, had the final say. The retirement age for judges was lowered from 70 to 65, forcing many to step down and allowing the government to fill the vacancies with loyalists. The same tactics were applied to the national election commission, effectively erasing institutional independence across the board.

In Poland, the Law and Justice Party followed a similar trajectory after winning the 2015 election. It refused to recognize five Constitutional Tribunal judges appointed by the previous government and replaced them with its own picks. It then restructured the National Council of the Judiciary, which oversees judicial appointments, in order to dominate it. As in Hungary, the result was a judiciary that lost its independence, leading to wider democratic deterioration.

The DP's current posture toward the Korean judiciary bears a worrying resemblance to these cases. Threatening to impeach the chief justice over an unfavorable ruling and seeking to stack the Supreme Court through legislative revision mirrors the early steps taken in Hungary and Poland. In both countries, democratic erosion began with political encroachment on judicial autonomy.

These precedents show that the weakening of the judiciary is often the first sign of democratic backsliding. Korea should not take these warning signs lightly. What may appear as partisan retaliation today could become a structural threat to constitutional democracy tomorrow.

The Supreme Court in Seocho District, southern Seoul [YONHAP]

As James Madison, a key architect of the U.S. Constitution, wrote in Federalist No. 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary […] Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” He stressed the need to grant each branch of government the tools and incentives to resist encroachments by the others.

This was the very logic behind the doctrine of checks and balances. Once that system is undermined, democracy begins to erode. The DP's efforts to pressure and reshape the judiciary are not merely overreactions to a single court ruling — they amount to a direct challenge to Korea’s democratic order.

With the presidential election approaching, voters will soon pass judgment not only on policy platforms but on political behavior. It remains to be seen how the public will respond to this overt display of overreach and disregard for judicial independence.

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