The democracy they desired

Home > Opinion > Columns

The democracy they desired

Published: 15 May. 2025, 00:02

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Lee Sang-ryeol

The author is a senior editorial writer of the JoongAng Ilbo.

In their best-seller "How Democracies Die" (2018), Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt note, “Democracies may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders — presidents or prime ministers who use the very institutions of democracy to subvert it.” That description fits all too well with former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s Dec. 3 martial law declaration. Korea’s democracy barely survived. Most Democratic Party (DP) lawmakers rushed to the National Assembly that day to pass a resolution to revoke the declaration. But what kind of democracy were they trying to save?

The events that unfolded between May 1 and 7 may offer a revealing answer.

Democratic Party presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung speaks to reporters after the Seoul High Court's decision to postpone the hearing for his retrial for election law violations on May 7. [NEWS1]

On May 1, the Supreme Court overturned an appellate court’s acquittal of DP presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung in an election law violation case. The case was sent back to the Seoul High Court with instructions to reconsider the verdict with a guilty interpretation. The very next day, the High Court scheduled the first retrial hearing for May 15. The DP swiftly denounced the Supreme Court’s decision as a “judicial coup” and launched a fierce attack on the judiciary.

Party members demanded the resignation of Chief Justice Jo Hee-de, floated the idea of impeachment and called for a special prosecutor. They also urged all of Lee’s trials to be postponed until after the June 3 presidential election. The rhetoric turned hostile, with remarks like “Just wait one month” and “Who does the chief justice think he is?” On May 7, the Seoul High Court relented and pushed the retrial to after the election. For the DP, it was a one-week victory.

But they didn’t stop there. On the same day, the party pushed two controversial amendments through a parliamentary committee. One would revise the Criminal Procedure Act to suspend criminal trials for sitting presidents. The other would revise the Public Official Election Act — specifically the clause under which Lee was indicted. If the bills pass, Lee’s trial would be halted upon election, and the legal clause that criminalized his actions would no longer exist. In effect, the charges would vanish.

DP lawmakers claim this is to protect their leading presidential candidate. But if so, what becomes of the principle of separation of powers that sustains democracy?

There are two critical concerns. First is the legislature’s attempt to control the judiciary through impeachment and special investigations. These tools are meant to discipline those who break the law. What laws did Chief Justice Jo or the other justices violate? Is speeding up a delayed trial now considered misconduct? History shows that authoritarian regimes often begin by targeting judges. Juan Perón did it in Argentina. Alberto Fujimori in Peru followed suit. Hugo Chávez in Venezuela dissolved the Supreme Court and filled it with loyalists.

Second is the fact that the proposed legal changes serve only one individual. Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution states that “all citizens shall be equal before the law” and prohibits the establishment of “hereditary noble or privileged classes” in Paragraph 2. If laws are changed to shield one person from trial, that is the very definition of privilege.

Lee himself has been part of this campaign. On the day of the Supreme Court ruling, he stated, “Law is based on public consensus, and the people’s will matters most.” It did not sound like someone accepting the court’s decision. Regarding efforts to impeach justices, he said he would “respect the party’s judgment,” and even described the Supreme Court’s ruling as a “third attempted coup.”

Lawmakers of the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee hold a committee meeting on April 9. [KIM SUNG-RYONG]

On May 9, Lee remarked that “the judiciary is the final bastion of the separation of powers,” but added that “if the last bastion opens fire or self-destructs, it must be corrected.” Such remarks can only be read as a form of political pressure — if not direct orchestration — against the judiciary.

Fears about the concentration of legislative, executive and judicial power in a single person are not unfounded. When political power dominates the courts and controls the trial process, the result is not a democratic state but something far more dangerous. These are not abstract concerns. They are unfolding in plain sight.

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