Debate Over Constitutional Reform Gains Momentum in South Korea

There is a growing consensus in South Korea's political arena about the need to amend the current constitution, which has been in place for nearly 40 years since 1987. However, substantial discussions have yet to make significant progress. The core issue revolves around restructuring the power dynamics, particularly how much authority should be decentralized from the presidency. Experts highlight that the key to successful reform lies in both major parties finding a common 'greatest common divisor' and expanding that consensus among the public.

◇Consensus on Need for Reform, but Disagreements on Power Structure

According to reports from September 9, both ruling and opposition parties generally agree on the necessity of constitutional amendments. The People Power Party, which has been somewhat passive about reform, does not oppose the idea of amending the constitution itself. A national survey conducted by the National Assembly in February revealed that 68.3% of 12,000 respondents supported constitutional changes, indicating a significant public consensus on the issue.

However, the situation changes when it comes to the critical aspect of restructuring power. Various proposals, including a dual executive system and a parliamentary system, have been discussed, but recent conversations have focused on maintaining the presidential system while redistributing the concentrated powers of the presidency.

President Lee Jae-myung mentioned last month on X (formerly Twitter) that there should be adjustments to the powers of the president and the National Assembly, suggesting a shift to a four-year term limit or a re-election system. The People Power Party also proposed a constitutional amendment last April to change the presidential term to a four-year limit and introduce a responsible prime minister system.

The challenge lies in the ambiguity surrounding the concept of 'decentralization' as discussed by lawmakers. While there is agreement on the need to reduce presidential powers, there are differing opinions on what specific powers should be transferred, to whom, and to what extent.

Proposals include having the National Assembly recommend the Prime Minister or sharing some of the president's appointment powers with the Assembly. While this could provide checks on the president's authority, critics argue that overly diminishing presidential powers could undermine the intent of the current system, where the president is directly elected by the people. Ultimately, the key task is to find an 'appropriate level of decentralization' that maintains direct presidential elections while enhancing checks and balances.

Kyung Hee University law professor Jeong Tae-ho explained in a conversation with Aju Economy that in decentralized systems abroad, presidents are directly elected by the public, yet their actual powers differ significantly.

Professor Jeong, who supports maintaining the presidential system, cautioned against changing the form of government based solely on a few academic arguments and comparative legal studies. He suggested that a weighted voting threshold could be applied to positions requiring neutrality, rather than fully transferring the president's appointment powers to the National Assembly, thereby strengthening checks on specific appointments.

Conversely, political commentator Park Sang-byeong proposed a more proactive decentralization model where powers are shared between the president and the prime minister. He argued that the president should retain authority over foreign affairs, security, and unification, while the prime minister, representing the majority party, should manage administration, safety, land, and transportation, creating a hybrid system of presidential and parliamentary governance.

◇Expanding Constitutional Issues: Bicameral Legislature, Emergency Control, and Balanced Development

In addition to power structure discussions, several other issues are expected to be on the constitutional reform agenda. One prominent proposal is the introduction of a bicameral legislature similar to those in the United States or Japan. Proponents argue that a bicameral system would enhance regional representation in the National Assembly and create a political structure that allows for thorough deliberation.

However, there are counterarguments. Park noted that a bicameral system could become burdensome, suggesting instead increasing the number of proportional representatives to 100 and lowering the threshold for negotiating groups from 20 seats to encourage more diverse representation.

Additionally, discussions are likely to include measures to establish checks on the National Election Commission, especially following controversies over voter rights during the 6-3 local elections. Proposals to strengthen National Assembly oversight of emergency powers and to more clearly enshrine regional balanced development in the constitution are also being considered. There have been ongoing calls to include the spirit of democracy from events like the May 18 Gwangju Uprising and the Busan Democratic Uprising in the constitutional preamble.

Ultimately, the success of constitutional reform hinges on how far both parties can find common ground among the various issues. Attempting to resolve all contentious points at once could complicate negotiations and risk derailing the reform process altogether.

Experts emphasize that for reform to become a reality, the ruling Democratic Party must actively engage in negotiations with the opposition. Since amending the constitution requires a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly, pursuing changes without opposition agreement is practically unfeasible.

Korea University law professor Cha Jin-ah stated, "If the Democratic Party is serious about constitutional reform, it must engage in discussions with the People Power Party. Without such negotiations, there will be suspicions that the push for reform is merely a tactic to shift focus due to declining presidential approval ratings."