By John Burton
The recent protests that have swept first Korea and then the U.S. have a common theme: they represent efforts to curb the threat of "imperial presidencies." Both countries are now grappling with constitutional issues in the wake of Choi-gate and the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president.
Choi-gate has triggered a public debate about whether the Korean presidency has grown too powerful. A strong executive ironically represents the legacy of President Park Geun-hye's father, Park Chung-hee, who laid the foundations for authoritarian rule following his 1961 military coup.
Although the constitution was revised in 1987 as part of Korea's democratization process, the president still wields enormous powers as exposed by Choi-gate. Lawmakers are now seeking to weaken presidential powers by a possible return to a parliamentary system that briefly existed in Korea between the downfall of Syngman Rhee in 1960 and the 1961 military coup.
Other power-sharing suggestions include adopting a French-style system where the president mainly focuses on foreign affairs and the prime minister deals with domestic issues and administration.
But there are also concerns that a more even distribution of power between the executive and legislative branches would slow the government decision-making and policy implementation at a time when Korea is facing increased economic and geopolitical challenges.
While reformers believe changing the political structure would also reduce the money ties between chaebol and the Blue House, it could also open the possibilities for increased corruption among lawmakers.
A compromise solution aimed at maintaining presidential guidance in the affairs of state over a longer period, while giving the National Assembly a greater say would be to adopt the American presidential system of two four-year terms instead of Korea's current single five-year presidential term.
Another proposal would be to give provincial governments more administrative power to counter a centralized decision-making process under the control of the Blue House.
While two-thirds of Koreans favor some form of constitutional revision according to recent polls, finding a workable solution to redistribute power and prevent presidential abuses will not be easy.
Just look at what is now happening in the U.S. The American system of checks and balances is often cited as one of the world's best examples of a government that ensures democratic values while maintaining effective executive power.
But that premise is being called into question with the arrival of President Trump. In his few first weeks in office, he has issued a flurry of executive orders that appear intent on overriding traditional institutional curbs on the authority of the White House.
American school children are taught that the Founding Fathers sought to block the rise of a tyrant, a serious concern in the late 18th century when absolutist rulers were the norm, by distributing powers among the presidency, Congress and the judiciary to prevent each separate branch of government from growing too strong at the expense of the others.
Optimists would say that this system is still working fine. Take Trump's executive order to ban the entry into the U.S. of citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries. It has been challenged by the attorney generals of several U.S. states and has been temporarily blocked by the courts.
But the issue could be ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, whose future rulings will be influenced by the judges that the Trump will nominate and who will likely be approved by a Republican-controlled Congress.
Trump has inherited presidential powers that have been expanding over the last 15 years, partly in response to the 9/11 attacks. Congress, which traditionally has been seen as the main check on the presidency, has granted increased authority to the White House since 2001 when it comes to war, foreign policy and the treatment of civil liberties.
The influence of Congress is also being weakened by increased partisanship that is producing political deadlock and paralysis. Trump exploited this situation during his presidential campaign by promising voters that he would be strong enough to "fix" the system.
Trump favors a "majoritarian" view of democracy. This reflects a winner-take-all mentality where election winners can ignore the views of the losing minority. Until recently, American democracy rested on the premise of a consensus being forged between the views of the majority and minority. That centrist approach appears now to be breaking down.
The remaining restraint on a powerful presidency is public protest. This has been more often used in Korea, which has lacked a tradition of consensual democracy like that in the U.S. It can also prove to be highly effective. The massive demonstrations in Seoul last year helped led to President Park's impeachment.
Americans are now resorting to the same methods as shown in the recent protests in Washington D.C. and elsewhere. But public protests can also lead to mob rule. What will happen, for example, if the constitutional court rules in favor of Park? I fear the result could be large and perhaps violent protests that would undermine Korea's constitutional order.
John Burton is vice president, Media Strategy, Insight Communications Consultants.
(0)(3)(0).jpg/dims/resize/740/optimize) |
Choi-gate has triggered a public debate about whether the Korean presidency has grown too powerful. A strong executive ironically represents the legacy of President Park Geun-hye's father, Park Chung-hee, who laid the foundations for authoritarian rule following his 1961 military coup.
Although the constitution was revised in 1987 as part of Korea's democratization process, the president still wields enormous powers as exposed by Choi-gate. Lawmakers are now seeking to weaken presidential powers by a possible return to a parliamentary system that briefly existed in Korea between the downfall of Syngman Rhee in 1960 and the 1961 military coup.
Other power-sharing suggestions include adopting a French-style system where the president mainly focuses on foreign affairs and the prime minister deals with domestic issues and administration.
But there are also concerns that a more even distribution of power between the executive and legislative branches would slow the government decision-making and policy implementation at a time when Korea is facing increased economic and geopolitical challenges.
While reformers believe changing the political structure would also reduce the money ties between chaebol and the Blue House, it could also open the possibilities for increased corruption among lawmakers.
A compromise solution aimed at maintaining presidential guidance in the affairs of state over a longer period, while giving the National Assembly a greater say would be to adopt the American presidential system of two four-year terms instead of Korea's current single five-year presidential term.
Another proposal would be to give provincial governments more administrative power to counter a centralized decision-making process under the control of the Blue House.
While two-thirds of Koreans favor some form of constitutional revision according to recent polls, finding a workable solution to redistribute power and prevent presidential abuses will not be easy.
Just look at what is now happening in the U.S. The American system of checks and balances is often cited as one of the world's best examples of a government that ensures democratic values while maintaining effective executive power.
But that premise is being called into question with the arrival of President Trump. In his few first weeks in office, he has issued a flurry of executive orders that appear intent on overriding traditional institutional curbs on the authority of the White House.
American school children are taught that the Founding Fathers sought to block the rise of a tyrant, a serious concern in the late 18th century when absolutist rulers were the norm, by distributing powers among the presidency, Congress and the judiciary to prevent each separate branch of government from growing too strong at the expense of the others.
Optimists would say that this system is still working fine. Take Trump's executive order to ban the entry into the U.S. of citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries. It has been challenged by the attorney generals of several U.S. states and has been temporarily blocked by the courts.
But the issue could be ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, whose future rulings will be influenced by the judges that the Trump will nominate and who will likely be approved by a Republican-controlled Congress.
Trump has inherited presidential powers that have been expanding over the last 15 years, partly in response to the 9/11 attacks. Congress, which traditionally has been seen as the main check on the presidency, has granted increased authority to the White House since 2001 when it comes to war, foreign policy and the treatment of civil liberties.
The influence of Congress is also being weakened by increased partisanship that is producing political deadlock and paralysis. Trump exploited this situation during his presidential campaign by promising voters that he would be strong enough to "fix" the system.
Trump favors a "majoritarian" view of democracy. This reflects a winner-take-all mentality where election winners can ignore the views of the losing minority. Until recently, American democracy rested on the premise of a consensus being forged between the views of the majority and minority. That centrist approach appears now to be breaking down.
The remaining restraint on a powerful presidency is public protest. This has been more often used in Korea, which has lacked a tradition of consensual democracy like that in the U.S. It can also prove to be highly effective. The massive demonstrations in Seoul last year helped led to President Park's impeachment.
Americans are now resorting to the same methods as shown in the recent protests in Washington D.C. and elsewhere. But public protests can also lead to mob rule. What will happen, for example, if the constitutional court rules in favor of Park? I fear the result could be large and perhaps violent protests that would undermine Korea's constitutional order.
John Burton is vice president, Media Strategy, Insight Communications Consultants.
