Analysis: South Korea's constitutional reform debate to intensify

Yoon’s desire to leave a legacy raises hopes that constitutional reform will soon attract greater attention.

Topic: Constitutional reform debate to intensify

Event or Trend: Constitutional reform to change the current single five-year term to two consecutive five-year or four-year terms is a recurrent debate in South Korea. Yoon’s desire to leave a legacy raises hopes that constitutional reform will soon attract greater attention. 

Significance: Reforming the presidential term limit would enhance governance stability and allow for more consistent policymaking, particularly in economic and international affairs. This reform has significant implications for South Korea’s political structure, regional relations, and democratic practices. Government and business leaders, both in Korea and abroad, must pay close attention to these developments given the impact on South Korea's economic policies, political stability, and leadership in the region.

Analysis: The proposal to allow presidents to serve two five-year or four-year terms could reshape South Korean politics.

The single-term presidency was established in 1987 as part of South Korea’s transition from military rule to democracy. This limitation was meant to prevent any single president from consolidating power, as had been seen during authoritarian regimes like those of Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan. While this structure protected South Korea from dictatorial leadership, it also introduced several challenges:

• Policy discontinuity: Presidents often focus on short-term gains rather than long-term reforms, knowing their time is limited.

• Lame-duck periods: Presidents lose political power in their final years, which limits their ability to pass significant legislation.

• Scandals and instability: Every president since democratization has faced scandals, which many attribute to the pressures of achieving major successes within a short time frame.

Allowing two presidential terms could address some of the current system’s shortcomings.

With the prospect of serving up to ten years with reelection, presidents may be more willing to invest in long-term reforms addressing pressing issues such as economic inequality, housing affordability, and an aging population. Knowing that their term could run for ten years, presidents would face less pressure to enact populist measures that generate short-term approval.

Longer terms would also bring greater consistency in diplomacy. With foreign and security policy power centered within the presidential office, single five-year terms result in policy discontinuity with changes in senior roles, changes in policy, and lack of institutionalization. Ten years provides adequate time to establish policy initiatives and secure bipartisan support. 

Political Stability. Supporters argue that a two-term system could strengthen democratic accountability by ensuring presidents remain responsive to voters in pursuit of a second term. This could lead to more thoughtful governance.

Critics worry that a longer presidency might lead to power entrenchment. South Korea's history of strongman leadership has made many wary of reforms that might reduce checks on executive power. The idea of extending the presidency has divided both the public and political parties:

Comparative Insights: Many democracies, such as the United States and France, allow two-term presidencies. In these systems, second-term presidents often focus on securing their legacy, implementing long-term reforms, and engaging more assertively in foreign policy. However, states with successful two term presidential systems have more established party political systems, stronger bureaucracy, and more powerful parliament.

Outlook: In the short term (0-12 months), the debate over constitutional reform is expected to intensify as the presidential term winds down. Opposition lawmakers and members of Yoon’s own party have pushed back against the proposal, fearing it could undermine democratic checks and balances. A two-thirds majority in the National Assembly is required for constitutional amendments, making the reform difficult to pass without broad political consensus.