Restoring the balance: A republic beyond one-person rule

Home > Opinion > Columns

Restoring the balance: A republic beyond one-person rule

Published: 16 May. 2025, 00:01

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Park Myung-lim

The author is a political professor of Yonsei University.

The current presidency, marred by an ill-fated declaration of martial law by a reckless leader, has been cut short — not even completing a full term. Before that, President Park Geun-hye was removed from office through impeachment, despite having won with a clear majority, the first since democratization. Her successor, President Moon Jae-in, assumed power amid a national crisis but failed to secure an extension of his party’s rule, despite his administration benefiting from a parliamentary supermajority.

Election officials hang up presidential candidate posters at a wall in Jongno District, central Seoul on May 15. [NEWS1]

These consecutive collapses point to a deeper problem: Public sentiment in Korea is shifting more rapidly than election cycles. Citizens’ sense of political efficacy — how much their voice seems to matter — has grown volatile, often outpacing both presidential and legislative terms. This is compounded by Korea’s unique institutional mismatch: Electoral victories rarely translate into proportionate governing power, leading to conflict, unrest and frequent mass protests.

Modern republican systems, which are built on the ideal of electing representatives through regular elections, were designed with this volatility in mind. Two institutional mechanisms have historically aimed to stabilize governance in the face of fast-moving public moods.

The first is staggered terms for high officeholders. In presidential systems like Korea’s, this principle ensures that the legislature, the executive and the judiciary do not serve concurrent terms. The idea is to prevent a singular wave of emotion or public sentiment from dominating all branches of government at once. By misaligning election calendars, a society can buffer the impact of sudden shifts in public mood, preserving continuity and rational governance. It is also essential to the separation of powers. That is why the president, members of the legislature and the highest court judges must serve different terms.

The second mechanism lies in the separation of electoral stages. In parliamentary systems, for instance, voters elect legislators, who then select the executive leader. This two-stage process filters leadership choices through experienced representatives, curbing populism and preventing demagogues from rising on sheer charisma or inflammatory rhetoric alone. Here, too, the distinction is vital: “Election” by the people and “selection” by representatives serve as checks on one another.

Rather than compare the strengths and weaknesses of these systems, it is more useful to focus on their shared goal: protecting the nation and its people from the overreach of individual rulers or factions. When a political faction seizes power and uses it unilaterally, only to be replaced by a rival faction that reverses course, the nation suffers. Policy shifts, administrative purges, and opposing demands for loyalty and resistance tear at the fabric of society. When repeated, this cycle leads to national decline and public disillusionment.

The solution is to dilute power and contain political swings within the agreed-upon values and norms of a constitutional republic. No single party, campaign or individual should wield unchecked authority over the direction of the country. Korea must move away from the current model, where power swings from one extreme to another depending on the winner. Without a renewed commitment to the separation of powers, the core aims of national stability and public well-being are at risk.

A campaign team — essentially a temporary faction — should not dictate national priorities simply because it secured an electoral edge, often with disproportionate support. The winner-take-all structure of Korean politics leads to policy discontinuity, fierce political strife, and the loss of bipartisan or nonpartisan public agendas. This constitutional imbalance must be addressed.

If the Constitution and political system continue to allow a tiny circle surrounding the president to upend national policies after each election, it will become increasingly difficult to build and maintain shared goals for the country. The framers of democratic republics understood this well. They designed institutions to guard the people and the nation not just from external threats, but from internal power itself.

Historically, terms such as faction, sect or party carried strongly negative connotations. It was only with the emergence of modern liberal and democratic republics that these groups became institutionalized as legitimate political actors. The transformation of factions into political parties was inextricably linked to the rise of republics, which were based on concepts like the public good, common welfare and shared resources. Parties, in this context, were never meant to dominate the entire system but to act as parts of a broader whole.

On May 13, the second day of official campaigning for Korea’s 21st presidential election, Democratic Party candidate Lee Jae-myung (left) rallies supporters on Dongseong-ro Street in Daegu, People Power Party candidate Kim Moon-soo campaigns at Sinjeong Market in Nam District, Ulsan, and Reform Party candidate Lee Jun-seok delivers a speech at Kyungpook National University in Daegu. [YONHAP]

Today, however, political parties and election campaigns often act as if they own the entire state after winning office. Presidents elected by a subset of voters often proceed as if they have secured the mandate of the entire nation. This is a fundamental reversal of the original principle. We must correct this inversion if Korea is to function as a true democratic republic.

Unless we find a way to withstand the schemes of political factions and reestablish structural checks on executive power, not only will the republic’s stability suffer, but the spaces for freedom and democracy may shrink as well. What makes the current election alarming is that, even after enduring the trauma of a president’s anachronistic coup attempt, these institutional vulnerabilities are not front and center in public discourse.

If Korea is to secure its future, it must move beyond the dominance of singular leaders and factions. Structural reform to protect the state and its people from partisan overreach is not a secondary issue — it is the core mission of any democratic republic.

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