Constitutional reform must begin with self-reflection

Home > Opinion > Columns

Constitutional reform must begin with self-reflection

Published: 09 May. 2025, 00:01

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Cho Yoon-je

The author is a special appointment professor at Yonsei University School of Economics.

Amid a string of presidential failures and misfortunes, the public consensus for constitutional reform in Korea has grown stronger. Presidential candidates have joined the chorus, pledging amendments and making constitutional reform a key issue in the upcoming election. Yet the conversation remains superficial. While public support for reform is high, there is little agreement on what form it should take, what constitutional philosophy it should be built on, or what power structure best suits the country. A few proposals have been drafted by former lawmakers' associations, the National Assembly, and some advocacy groups, but no national debate has taken shape.

The presidential office building in Yongsan District, central Seoul on April 4. [KIM HYUN-DONG]

Constitutional reform is often framed as a matter for legal scholars or political scientists. When the National Assembly discusses it, parliamentary or semi-presidential systems tend to dominate the conversation. Academics point to models from advanced democracies, suggesting that Korea should follow their lead. But it remains unclear whether those models are truly the best fit for Korea’s unique political and cultural context. Changing the system of government alone may not be enough to fix what ails Korean politics.

For centuries, Korea lived under an absolute monarchy characterized by rigid hierarchies and centralized power. After liberation in 1945, the country adopted a liberal democratic constitution modeled on Western systems, absorbing within a few short years what had taken Western nations centuries of Enlightenment and revolution to develop. It was a radical shift without the necessary societal “transformer” to bridge traditional and modern governance. That this system has functioned at all is a testament to the rapid rise in public education and political awareness. Still, traditional norms persist.

Confucian values, hierarchical social relationships, and deference to authority continue to shape daily life — in families, schools, and workplaces — even as Korea operates under a constitution based on Western liberalism. The disconnect between institutional structures and cultural behaviors has left democratic practices like rational debate, horizontal relationships, compromise, and cooperation underdeveloped. This misalignment is visible in how political parties function and how decisions are made in government.

Eight lawmakers discuss Constitutional reform at the National Assembly in Yeouido, western Seoul in 1987. [YONHAP]

Korea has forged its own path to economic development. It does not need to replicate Western models wholesale. Even Japan, with its postwar “1955 system,” evolved a form of democracy dominated by one party for decades. Among Asian countries influenced by Confucian traditions, Korea most closely follows Western-style liberal democracy. Yet its outcomes have often been unstable. In the past 20 years alone, three presidents have faced impeachment motions, and two have failed to complete their terms.

Most arguments for constitutional reform center on the so-called “imperial presidency.” Critics argue that too much power is concentrated in the executive, and the solution is to dilute presidential authority. But have we properly diagnosed the underlying causes of political dysfunction? Would weakening the presidency automatically improve political culture or governance? Since democratization, presidential power has not always translated into effective leadership. Excessive legislative obstruction and the limitations of a single five-year term have often made it difficult for presidents to address long-term or structural challenges.

Much of what is labeled as “imperial” presidential power stems from the monopoly over personnel appointments. Though confirmation hearings were introduced to hold presidential nominations accountable, the process has become deeply politicized and largely symbolic. Opposition parties frequently oppose administration policies not on principle, but as part of a broader power struggle. Political gains are often pursued not to realize a vision or philosophy, but to distribute posts among party loyalists. In that sense, the real zero-sum battle is over appointments, not policy. Any future reform must include mechanisms that ensure presidential personnel decisions are balanced and fair, with effective checks on arbitrary appointments.

Former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo delivers a keynote speech at the Kwanhun Forum held at the Koreana Hotel in central Seoul on May 6. [NEWS1]

The current separation of powers already provides a foundation for accountability. Splitting executive power further — by creating a dual executive between president and prime minister — may seem attractive in times of political gridlock, but it also risks greater inefficiency and conflict. The presidential system is based on the principle that the president is solely responsible for governance. A more productive approach would be to rebalance power between the executive and the legislature. Korea could reduce the legislative burden on the National Assembly, which currently has more lawmaking authority than many peer democracies, and expand the president’s ability to govern through executive orders.

Former liberal Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung speaks during a Supreme Council meeting at the National Assembly in Yeouido, western Seoul on April 7. [NEWS1]

Introducing a two-term presidency would also allow for more policy consistency and reduce the frequency of electoral turnover. Aligning the timing of presidential and legislative elections could minimize the risk of divided government and enhance accountability. These steps would help strengthen the link between authority and responsibility.

Of course, these are just one observer’s suggestions. There are many other valid perspectives. What matters is that constitutional reform not be reduced to a short-term campaign talking point. It requires time, national participation, and serious deliberation. While international models can serve as references, Korea must begin the conversation with a deep and honest reflection on its own political consciousness, behavioral norms, and historical experiences. Rather than pursue reform through ideological or abstract frameworks, a pragmatic and reality-based approach is needed. Only then can Korea address the root causes of political dysfunction and build a more stable and hopeful democratic future.

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