Home > Think English > Journalism Internship

[Journalism Internship] Changing ‘winner-takes-all’ Constitution gains support

Published: 11 Jun. 2025, 13:34 Updated: 11 Jun. 2025, 15:01

Assembly Speaker Woo Won-Shik proposes a national referendum for a constitutional amendment during a press conference at the National Assembly on April 4. [YONHAP]

KIM JOSHUA, CHOI SEAN SHI-WOO, HWANG WOO-JIN

On Dec. 3rd, 2024, Korea was thrown into a constitutional crisis after former President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law in an unannounced televised address to the nation. Following the declaration, military and police personnel attempted to block lawmakers from gathering in the National Assembly, while citizens formed makeshift blockades to prevent soldiers from entering the voting chamber where 190 lawmakers voted to lift martial law.

Now, with the second presidential impeachment within a single decade in Korean history, calls for a constitutional reform have returned: to allow two presidential terms, decentralize power and end partisan deadlock.

During a press conference at the National Assembly on April 6, Speaker Woo Won-shik criticized the current Constitution for its “imperial presidency and the winner-takes-all political structure” and named it as a reason for Korea’s political divide. He urged immediate action to put the amendment to a national referendum together with the presidential election.

The last amendment was in 1987, when modern democratic principles were added. Before that, the Yushin Constitution gave past dictators Park Chung-Hee and Chun Doo-Hwan unchecked power. Remnants of that authoritarian framework enabling an imperial presidency still persist and continue to affect Korean politics today, such as the events of last December.

For example, parliament still has no say in appointing ministers or highlevel officials, leaving the president with unilateral power over the Cabinet. And unlike systems with legislative confirmation hearings or votes of no confidence, the National Assembly cannot effectively keep the president in check.

Constitutional researchers argue that the current Constitution is outdated and causes a power imbalance that results in political deadlock.

Different opinions

With two presidential impeachments in under a decade and recent political crises, there’s a growing discourse on the need for constitutional reform. Though differing in specifics, both the Democratic Party (DP) and People Power Party (PPP) acknowledge that the 1987 Constitution may no longer adequately reflect Korea’s current political and societal landscape.

Constitutional reform has been a long time coming, especially because politicians have promised amendments beforehand and changed their minds after elections.

Lee Jae-myung and the DP, with strong support ahead of the next presidential election, are hesitant to pursue the amendment. Pro-Lee representatives have argued that it is hard to agree that the amendment should be the top priority right now, adding that the urgent task is to thoroughly uncover the truth behind the martial law decree by Yoon, who is now being charged for an insurrection, and hold those responsible to account. More radical members demanded Speaker Woo stop “playing Mr. Speaker.”

The PPP welcomed Woo’s announcement. Following the impeachment of Yoon, the conservative party focused on decentralizing legislative power to counterbalance the supermajority of the DP.

Speaker Woo commented, “At the beginning of a presidential term, there’s hesitation due to fears that a constitutional amendment might become a black hole for governance, while in the latter half, momentum is lost due to lame duck status.”

Going forward

The unexpected martial law decree last December was Yoon’s arbitrary decision. But the fault also lies with the system that led to it and failed to stop it. In its ruling, the Constitutional Court pointed out that the conflict between Yoon and parliament “cannot be solely attributed to one party.”

The excessive power concentrated in the presidency has created distrust among opposition parties. Fearing political retaliation and legal persecution when out of power, they have come to view the presidency as an enemy, fueling a cycle of partisan conflict and leading to repeated impeachment motions.

One solution is to allow the president to serve two consecutive fouryear terms. Allowing re-election lowers the stakes, reducing the perception of the presidency as a “winner-takesall” office, which can end the vicious cycle of impeachments and partisan revenge. Plus, the president has an incentive to cooperate with the legislative body to pass his political agenda and remain accountable.

The fight between the executive and legislative branches has hurt the country. The National Assembly impeached a historic number of highranking officials, including Cabinet members. These impeached officials were suspended from office, leaving national leadership roles vacant.

And many of the president’s major policy plans couldn’t move forward due to opposition from the National Assembly, which also unilaterally passed legislation that the president opposed. Yoon then blocked a record number of these bills with vetoes, rejecting more legislation than any previous president.

In Korea, the executive branch is often described as “paralyzed,” and the legislature as a “plant.” That leaves only the people standing — wondering who actually runs the country.

The emerging consensus is to disperse both branches’ excessive power: decentralize the National Assembly by giving more legislative and budgetary authority to provincial governments and reform the current unicameral system into a bicameral one.

As for the presidency, experts call to make the Cabinet a formal deliberative body under a prime minister system. Codifying the prime minister’s customary powers and giving the office more authority over domestic administration while the president focuses on diplomacy and external affairs could be the more likely option to adopting a full semi-presidential system or a parliamentary cabinet system.

International precedent

Korea is not the only country that has had problems with power imbalance.

Nigeria had a situation similar to Korea. The country had a military dictatorship and strongman presidents for decades. However, during its drafting, the Nigerian constitution faced criticism for being unrepresentative and for lacking substance before it was implemented in 1999. After the new Nigerian government adopted the constitution, the president had two fouryear terms. As for Korea right now, candidates of the upcoming presidential election are mentioning changes to the constitution.

After enduring a military dictatorship under General Augusto Pinochet from 1973 to 1990, Chile adopted a new constitution in 1980 that centralized power in the presidency. Despite transitioning to democracy, this constitution remained in effect, leading to ongoing debates about its suitability in a modern democratic context. In recent years, Chile witnessed mass protests demanding a new constitution that better reflects contemporary societal values and democratic principles. This culminated in a 2020 referendum where a significant majority voted to draft a new constitution.

BY KIM JOSHUA, CHOI SEAN SHI-WOO, HWANG WOO-JIN [[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]]