In the days after President Yoon Suk Yeol’s short-lived martial law declaration, discussions on the problems with the current presidential system began to appear frequently in the media. The discussions are not new, but the shock of martial law followed by another presidential impeachment has given them new urgency. What are the complaints?

The current presidential system dates from 1987, when the Constitution was amended extensively to allow for the direct election of the president while strengthening the National Assembly and democratic rights. After years of dictatorship, people at the time wanted to limit presidential power and settled on limiting presidents to a single, five-year term. They also created the impeachment process as a check on abuse of power by the president and other officials. The revisions also created the Constitutional Court, which judges impeachments and the constitutionality of laws.

Since the 1987 system began, South Korean democracy has put down deep roots. After Roh Tae-woo won the 1987 election, two losers, Kim Young-sam and Kim Dae-jung, rejected the results, but the public did not, and in every subsequent election, the losers have gracefully accepted defeat. Since then, the presidency has changed back and forth from center-right to center-left leaders several times, helping establish the peaceful transfer of power as a norm. Control of the National Assembly has also gone back and forth between political blocs, sometimes forcing the president to work with an opposing political bloc. And, in 1995, local autonomy was introduced after decades of central control.

For all the progress, however, discontent with the presidential system remains. Of the eight presidents elected since 1987, three were jailed after leaving office while several others faced legal difficulties. Three, including Yoon, were impeached and one was removed from office. Experts argue that the term-limit makes presidents lame ducks after the first couple years, which encourages corruption and misgovernment.

Another problem often cited is the electoral system. Of the eight presidents elected since 1987, Park Geun-hye in 2012 remains the only president to receive more than 50 percent of the vote. In some cases, presidents have been elected by winning a little over 40 percent of the vote and, in 1987, just 36.6 percent of the vote. This means that most presidents have started their terms without majority support. This may help explain the steady drop in approval ratings that all presidents, except for Moon Jae-in, have experienced in the last several years of their terms.

Two main ideas have been offered to deal with the “president problem.” The first is to change the term of the president to four years and allow presidents to serve a maximum of two terms. Those in favor of this idea argue that the possibility of reelection keeps the president politically relevant, which reduces the early onset of the lame-duck period.

The second idea frequently offered is to switch to a parliamentary system in which the National Assembly chooses a prime minister to form a government. In this case, the president would be reduced to a ceremonial position. Supporters of this idea argue that this keeps leaders accountable because they can be easily replaced. They also argue that, with a few notable exceptions, such as the US, most advanced democracies have a parliamentary system.

Going forward, reformers should focus on the question of how best to facilitate the expression of the will of the people through elections. In the case of a presidential system, this means, at the very least, electing a president with a majority of the vote. Adopting a two-round election system would ensure that future presidents would start with electoral majority behind them. In this system, if no candidate wins a majority, a runoff election between the two highest vote getters chooses the winner. This system is used in France and most other presidential systems.

In parliamentary systems, methods of electing representatives to the legislature are important. In the UK, the candidate in a local election who gets the most votes wins, which tends to accentuate the leading party’s wins. In the recent 2024 election, for example, the Labour Party won 33.7 percent of the nationwide vote, but 63.2 percent of the seats in the House of Commons. France, by contrast, uses the two-round system for its legislature, which makes it more difficult for one party to sweep the elections with a low percentage of the vote.

Adopting a two-round system in 1987 was politically difficult at the time, but doing so now would strengthen democracy and help reduce political polarization.

Robert J. Fouser

Robert J. Fouser, a former associate professor of Korean language education at Seoul National University, writes on Korea from Providence, Rhode Island. He can be reached at robertjfouser@gmail.com. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. -- Ed.