[EAI Commentary] The Impeachment of Park Geun-hye and Korean Democracy

[Editor's Note]

On March 10th, the Constitutional Court ruled to impeach President Park Geun-hye. This was the first impeachment decision against a president in the history of the Korean Constitution. Professor Kang Won-taek of Seoul National University points out that the most fundamental cause of this outcome lies in a governance style that was out of step with the times. He argues that former President Park attempted to govern contemporary Korean society, 30 years after democratization, in an authoritarian manner reminiscent of the 1970s, ultimately facing public resistance. This can be interpreted as the impeachment decision reflecting a demand for change in the existing state governance system. It is now time for a new paradigm that can operate the nation from a balanced perspective, moving away from the imperial presidency.

“The respondent, President Park Geun-hye, is hereby dismissed.”

On March 10th, the Constitutional Court, with the unanimous opinion of all eight justices, decided to impeach President Park Geun-hye. This decision came three months after the National Assembly voted to impeach President Park on December 9th of the previous year with 234 votes in favor. The prolonged political controversy, which began in earnest with candlelight vigils demanding President Park's resignation in Gwanghwamun Square in late October last year, has finally come to an end.

This is the second time in our political history that a sitting president has been removed from power by the will of the people. The first instance was during the April 19 Revolution in 1960. President Syngman Rhee was forced to resign due to public pressure protesting the rigged March 15th election. However, the resistance at that time was violent, resulting in numerous casualties and injuries. The political crisis was resolved through violent and non-institutional means. In contrast, the political crisis this time was resolved within a democratic and constitutional framework. The public was outraged by the civilian meddling in state affairs and corruption scandals involving those in power, and expressed their anger over the president's incompetence and lack of communication through candlelight vigils. Subsequently, the National Assembly accepted their will and passed an impeachment motion, which the Constitutional Court finally upheld. The president was made to resign through the established procedures and peacefully, using the political system we have created. Compared to the April 19 Revolution, this demonstrates the institutional maturity of Korean democracy.

Meanwhile, 2017, the year of the impeachment, marks the 30th anniversary of democratization. After 30 years, countless citizens once again took to the streets in anger. The demand at that time was for procedural democracy, summarized as the 'direct presidential election system.' Fair and free elections, instead of 'gymnasium elections,' and the prevention of dictatorship and prolonged rule led to the political change of democratization. In contrast, this time, the anger was fueled not only by scandals involving the president but also by political and social unfairness, alienation, and indifference. The demands extended beyond the president's resignation to the establishment of a new political order and the reform of the national system. There were also significant differences in the methods of resistance compared to 30 years ago. While the resistance against the authoritarian regime 30 years ago was symbolized by firebombs and stones, the symbol of resistance this time was the candlelight. The political resistance was expressed not only peacefully but also in a festive manner.

However, on the other hand, the inherent conflicts within our society were also revealed. Fierce political confrontations arose between the candlelight vigils and the so-called 'Taegeukgi units' who opposed them, based on differing stances regarding the impeachment. This re-enacted the deep-seated conflicts between generations and ideologies.

While the impeachment of the president can be called a victory for democracy and constitutionalism, it is nonetheless a regrettable situation for the nation that a president duly elected through legal procedures had to step down before the end of her term. Why did this happen? Various reasons can be cited, but the most important point to address first is the issue of President Park Geun-hye's personal character and leadership. Although the direct cause of impeachment was President Park's excessive reliance on a private confidante named Choi Soon-sil, and Choi Soon-sil's exploitation of this reliance to meddle in state affairs, President Park's governance style itself was too outdated. President Park attempted to govern Korean society in the 2010s in the same manner as in the 1970s. Compared to the 1960s and 1970s when her father, President Park Chung-hee, led the nation, today's Korea has become far more complex, and the autonomy of each social sector has significantly increased. The situation is no longer one where a single president can make all judgments and decisions. The one-way governance, where the president speaks alone and ministers merely take notes, could not effectively resolve the numerous pending issues. Furthermore, individuals who could offer candid advice and raise concerns were not appointed to the cabinet or the Blue House in the first place. Relations with the ruling party were not smooth, let alone with the opposition party, and she failed to gain public trust through persuasion and communication. President Park's response to the Sewol ferry disaster, which resulted in the deaths of many, including young students, was passive and defensive.

Instead, President Park relied on a few close associates and power institutions. As a result, the situation worsened, but no one dared to point out the seriousness of the problem, only watching the president's reactions. The prosecution hesitated to act decisively, mindful of the Senior Secretary for Civil Affairs, and the media also failed to fulfill its role. The ruling party was effectively excluded from state administration throughout the term. Even when red flags were raised and worrying situations arose in state administration, the systems to prevent them in advance failed to function. Ultimately, this governance style led to a tragic end for the president.

The impeachment of the president this time carries significant meaning for our society. Above all, it signifies a generational shift. With this event, our society can finally bid farewell to the Park Chung-hee era. Although 30 years have passed since our society was democratized, the operational methods in various sectors, including the presidency, the Blue House, bureaucracy, economy, and education, have not fundamentally changed from the Park Chung-hee era. The developmental state model, characterized by a powerful presidency, bureaucracy-led economic development, and uneven development centered on conglomerates, had already revealed its limitations during the 1997 foreign exchange crisis. However, around the 2007 presidential election, a 'Park Chung-hee syndrome' emerged, and subsequently, the Park Chung-hee era's model was reapplied to our society. But now, construction projects, export strategies centered on large corporations, and the imperial presidency have all shown their limits. It is now an era that requires a new paradigm for new policy objectives and strategies.

Furthermore, it is noteworthy how conservative politics should evolve beyond the Cold War-era anti-communism symbolized by those waving the Taegeukgi and the US flag together, and the growth-centric approach of past conservatism. It is a time for discreet exploration of the values that Korean conservative politics, moving beyond Park Chung-hee, should embody. The conservative parties have already fractured.

Another meaning of this impeachment is the overcoming of the so-called '1987 system.' Despite the democratic consolidation over the years, this impeachment incident has clearly exposed the problems and limitations of the Korean presidential system. While significant progress has been made in procedural democracy over the past 30 years, effective checks and balances on the power concentrated in the presidency remain insufficient, as this incident has shown. On the other hand, the president's leadership, while described as imperial, has also been repeatedly shown to be quite weak in actual policy implementation and execution. For this reason, recent public opinion polls show a very high level of agreement on the need for constitutional revision. Now, what is needed is not only power transition and fair elections but also a governance structure that can effectively carry out its duties. In that regard, it would be desirable to reform the system by significantly reducing the president's powers and allowing the prime minister and cabinet to play substantial roles in policy decision-making and execution.

In this context, one more point to address is the stability of our current presidential system. In our country, which adopts a presidential system characterized by the stability of tenure, impeachment motions against the president have been filed twice in the past decade. And this time, the impeachment of the president has actually been realized. It has become unsurprising if the president faces the threat of impeachment from the National Assembly again in the future, depending on the political situation. However, the possibility of frequent impeachments under a presidential system can weaken political stability. A form of governance that allows for the possibility of regular government dismissal is a parliamentary system. However, in such a system, the prime minister and cabinet are granted the power to dissolve parliament, thereby providing a check on parliamentary no-confidence votes. These points should also be considered in depth in the discussion for institutional reform to move beyond the '1987 system.'

The impeachment of President Park Geun-hye has served as an opportunity to reaffirm the chronic problems of Korean politics alongside the progress of our democracy. Everyone must come together with one heart and pool their wisdom to ensure that this event becomes an opportunity to usher in a new era for national leap forward, leaving behind the outdated era that is out of step with reality. ■

Author

Kang Won-taek_ Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Seoul National University. Chairman of the EAI Civic Politics Panel. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the London School of Economics and Political Science, UK. His major works include "National Identity and Korean Politics," "Changes and Continuities in Korean Electoral Politics," "How Conservative Politics Survived," "Korean Democracy After Unification," and "The Story of South Korean Democratization: A Modern Korean Political History."

The 〈EAI Commentary〉 is a commentary series planned to provide a platform for discourse where experts from various fields can offer in-depth analyses and policy recommendations on major domestic and international issues. Please cite the source when quoting.

EAI is an independent research institution, unaffiliated with any partisan interests. The claims and opinions expressed in reports, journals, and books published by EAI are not attributable to EAI and solely represent the views of the individual authors.