[Editorial] Dispute over Constitution

With the early presidential election now set for June 3, South Korea’s politics has raised a critical issue related to the ouster of President Yoon Suk Yeol: a revision of the Constitution aimed at keeping the president’s power at bay.

The Constitutional Court unanimously voted to remove Yoon from office on Friday, upholding his impeachment case and capping months of political turmoil caused by his failed attempt to place the nation under martial law last December.

Following the ouster of Yoon, a new president must be elected within 60 days, and the government on Tuesday formally designated June 3 as the date of the next presidential election.

The martial law decree, the first since the late 1980s, and its sweeping fallout on multiple fronts, are now widely perceived as the result of the overwhelming powers given to South Korean presidents.

This is the background fueling demand for a revision of the Constitution — one that would prevent potential abuse of power by a president who could throw the entire nation into extreme chaos overnight with an order to impose martial law.

National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik proposed on Sunday that the country should hold a national referendum on revising the Constitution for that purpose on the same day as the early presidential election.

“A constitutional amendment is necessary to further strengthen the pillars of the separation of powers to ensure popular sovereignty and national unity,” Woo said.

In South Korea, the president or National Assembly can propose a constitutional amendment. Its passage requires approval by a two-thirds majority in the Assembly and then by a majority in a national referendum, in which more than half of eligible voters participate.

The country’s Constitution has been amended nine times since 1948, with the last revision made in 1987, introducing a directly elected, single five-year term presidency.

The People Power Party on Monday supported Woo’s proposal to hold a referendum on a revision of the Constitution on June 3.

Rep. Kwon Young-se, the People Power Party leader, said a consensus in favor of overhauling the country’s power structure is taking shape. “We have witnessed the risks of a president having all the powers of the state,” Kwon said.

Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea said Monday that he also sees the need for a revision but expressed his reluctance to prioritize a revision that would reconfigure the scope of a president's power.

Lee, who is seen as a frontrunner in the upcoming presidential election, said that it is more important to “stop Yoon’s attempt to destroy democracy” and “put an end to Yoon’s insurrection.”

Lee claimed that the referendum could be implemented after the presidential election is over. But it is highly unlikely that an elected president would allow for a constitutional revision that will limit his or her own executive power.

Lee’s refusal to agree to the proposed revision is interpreted as a sign that he does not want a change in the current presidential election race, which seems to favor him over other potential rival candidates.

But given that the Constitutional Court’s unequivocal ruling has dismissed Yoon, and investigations into those involved in the martial law decree are already underway, Lee’s continued emphasis on ending the insurrection could extend a troubling period of divisive political confrontation and raise concerns about political revenge should the opposition party win the election.

If Lee cannot accept holding the presidential election and constitutional referendum simultaneously, then he should present a concrete alternative to end the politics of extreme confrontation. After all, extending the current political system for another five years — one marked by mutual hostility and the absence of checks, dialogue or compromise — offers little promise of meaningful change.