Toward a pluralistic democracy: Interpreting President Lee Jae Myung’s ‘popular sovereignty’

Home > Opinion > Columns

Toward a pluralistic democracy: Interpreting President Lee Jae Myung’s ‘popular sovereignty’

Published: 24 Jun. 2025, 00:02

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Park Sang-hoon

The author is a political scientist.

The snap presidential election has concluded. The head of state has changed, and the ruling and opposition parties have switched positions. In retrospect, given why this extraordinary vote was held in the first place, the public’s decision appears rational. Yet, calls persist for continued mobilization of the electorate, with some insisting that true democracy requires the people to exercise power not only at the ballot box, but in daily governance.

President Lee Jae Myung’s invocation of a “government of popular sovereignty” seems to echo that sentiment. But the principle of popular sovereignty, while foundational to democracy, is not something that should — or can — be constantly activated. If misapplied, it can generate the opposite of democratic outcomes.

President Lee Jae Myung poses for a commemorative photo during a luncheon hosted by National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik to mark his inauguration as Korea’s 21st president at Sarangjae in the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul, on June 4. From left: Han Chang-min, leader of the Social Democratic Party; Kim Jae-yeon, leader of the Progressive Party; Kim Sun-min, acting leader of the Rebuilding Korea Party; Park Chan-dae, floor leader of the Democratic Party; President Lee; Speaker Woo; Kim Yong-tae, interim leader of the People Power Party; Chun Ha-ram, acting leader and floor leader of the Reform Party; and Yong Hye-in, leader of the Basic Income Party. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

In fact, past political abuses have often been justified in the name of popular sovereignty. Park Chung Hee’s constitutional amendment for a third term, followed by the Yushin Constitution, both claimed legitimacy through appeals to the people. Even the American Civil War was rooted in the concept: legislation driven by “popular sovereignty” allowed new states to decide on the legality of slavery. The result was a nation divided and a devastating civil conflict.

Few have explained the nuanced relationship between democracy and popular sovereignty more insightfully than Bernard Crick, a British democratic socialist and civic educator. Crick argued for a “politics-centered democracy,” one that respects the role of institutions and procedures. In "In Defence of Politics" (1962), published in Korean by Humanitas, Crick likened popular sovereignty to a parent of democracy. But just as adult children should not be under constant parental control, a mature democracy must function through elected representatives who manage governance using political processes.

Democracy has many companions beyond popular sovereignty. Constitutionalism, parliamentary democracy, separation of powers, and multiparty competition are all essential. These principles often compete with, and sometimes constrain, the will of the people. But this complex interplay is what allows democracy to adapt to social change.

President Park Chung Hee, who secured a third term, delivers his inaugural address as the 7th president in Seoul on July 1, 1971. [PRESIDENTIAL ARCHIVES]

The key lies in separating “sovereignty” from “rights.” Citizens hold inviolable rights. The sovereign power to govern, meanwhile, is entrusted to elected officials through legitimate elections. To reject the outcome of elections or make unfounded claims of fraud is to undermine sovereignty. At the same time, using election victories to suppress civil liberties constitutes a violation of rights.

Democracy depends on the coexistence of free citizens and accountable governments. In the recent election, the public shifted its delegation of sovereign authority in response to dissatisfaction with governance — not to grant the new president unchecked power or a license to override civil rights.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, often cited as a progenitor of popular sovereignty, offers further clarity. In his view, the "people" are a passive whole, while "citizens" are active participants. It is through periodic general assemblies — elections — that the people’s “general will” is expressed. In the time between elections, what must be cultivated is not popular sovereignty, but the equal rights of citizens. Rousseau was critical of Athenian democracy for enabling the constant exercise of popular power without institutional separation.

What should be encouraged in everyday governance is not the activation of sovereignty, but the realization of civil rights. A functioning democracy ensures that even the most marginalized can exercise their rights equally. Rousseau suggested holding national assemblies once a year to assess the general will, but in Korea, elections take place approximately every 1.4 years through presidential, parliamentary and local votes. Between those moments, individual freedoms must be protected and elected parties held accountable.

Extraordinary national assemblies like this year’s election should remain rare. If such crisis-driven elections become the norm, they risk a spiral of revolution and counterrevolution — an outcome seen in the later stages of the French Revolution. In such moments, minority factions with loud voices dominate, and polarization intensifies until compromise becomes impossible.

Voters line up to cast their ballots at the Yeouido No. 4 polling station set up at Yeouido Middle School in Yeongdeungpo District, Seoul, on June 3, the day of Korea’s 21st presidential election. [YONHAP]

Modern presidents, too, have contributed to this erosion. Rather than restoring institutional politics between government and opposition, they have often sought direct communication with “the people,” bypassing parliamentary mediation. It is often presidents who rely on direct democracy and popular sovereignty that end up finding themselves politically isolated.

This must change. When a president engages the opposition, they also gain legitimacy among that party’s supporters. Laws and policies backed by diverse political actors carry greater authority and are more likely to endure. A political system where multiple parties represent varied social interests is more stable and democratic than one in which a single party monopolizes power.

The path forward lies not in intensifying “popular sovereignty,” but in strengthening pluralist democracy. A more pluralistic system is ultimately a freer and more equal one.

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