by Kim Pyung-woo (Attorney and Former Head of Korea Bar Association)
 
In 1987, Korea revised its Constitution and the status of the president has weakened considerably due to the implementation of a single, five-year term. The president's re-election is essentially blocked and ends up attaining lame-duck when he or she reaches the fourth year of his or her presidency. On the other hand, members of the unicameral National Assembly enjoy four-year terms and can be re-elected, resulting in longer tenures than the president.
 
Traditionally, the conservative right and the liberal left have faced off in Korean politics along with the rivalry between residents of the Jeolla and Gyeongsang provinces that resulted in factional strifes that transcend those witnessed during the Chosundynasty. When a charismatic leaders, such as Kim Young-sam and Kim Dae-jung, were president, a presidential government system operated smoothly due to their clout. However, with the disappearance of such charismatic political leaders since President Roh Moo-hyun, the authority and efficiency of the Korean government has continued to decline, as the National Assembly overpowered the president.
 
In 2004 and 2016, in particular, when left-leaning politicians gained a majority of the seats in the National Assembly, the pendulum of power shifted to parliament. As a result, the opposition party, which took control of the National Assembly, transcended its original mission of keeping the president’s powers in check and was tempted to wrest control of government by seeking to impeach the president or call for his or her resignation.
 
There are a few legal loopholes that encourage this temptation. One is the so-called “automatic suspension system.” Article 65, Clause 3 of the Constitution stipulates that even if the National Assembly seeks to impeach the president, the president's duties are suspended until the Constitutional Court reaches a ruling. Automatic suspension is a special system in Korea that does not exist in other countries. While the president’s official powers are suspended, the prime minister serves as acting president.
 
The U.S. does not have measures that strip a president facing impeachment of all of his or her powers. In South America, a president's authority is suspended only if the upper house of parliament authorizes an impeachment filing submitted by the lower house, while the president has the right to go to court to have the impeachment resolution annulled. Korea is modeled on the German system. In Germany, parliament is the plaintiff, while the ruling is made by the constitutional court. In order to suspend the president's powers, parliament must prove the urgency of the motion, chance of winning and suitability. In Germany, however, there is instance of parliament impeaching a president.
 
According to our Constitution, the National Assembly's impeachment bill is a unilateral accusation of the president. There is no guarantee that the contents of the impeachment bill is true. And there is no guarantee that the rational for impeachment is based on an illegal act. And even if the indictment is legitimate and based on facts, there is still no guarantee that there is a grave enough offense requiring impeachment. The entire decision is up to the Constitutional Court. Yet nobody can be sure of the court's ruling. On top of that, nobody knows how long the impeachment trial will last.
 
Leaving a leader and supreme military commander responsible for the nation's security in such an unstable state for an extended period of time exposes a country to major risks. It also goes against the constitutionally guaranteed principle of due process that stipulates that an individual is innocent until proven guilty.
 
Korea's aristocratic class (politicians and their followers) which has traditionally been more interested in factional fighting than on national security and public welfare since the Chosun dynasty, are intent on using the automatic suspension to their fullest benefit. It is of no importance to them whether the rationale for impeachment is valid, against the law or of grave significance or not. They are only interested in suspending the president's official power so they may be able to wrest control of the government. The news media, prosecution and big businesses quickly abandon the president, who appears to have lost all of her powers, and start cozying up to the political opposition. Unfortunately, this is the situation in which Korea has ended up.
 
If the Constitution did not authorize the suspension of the president’s powers, would the opposition still have pushed ahead with impeachment proceedings in just a week by accusing Park of receiving W70 billion in bribes (including W7.5 billion from Lotte Group)? I don’t think so.
If there was no automatic suspension, opposition lawmakers would not have rushed ahead with an impeachment motion they had no guarantee of winning. There would be nothing to gain. As a result, a flawed automatic suspension system, which does not exist in other countries, instigated the irrational impeachment bill and brought about chaos and confusion in the country.
 
The next systemic flaw in our country is the absence of a vice president. Countries that have adopted a presidential government system have a vice president (France is the exception by having a powerful prime minister instead of a vice president). A vice president ensures stability of government by assuming power if the president dies, resigns or is impeached. And an American system of having a presidential running mate enables a vice president to continue to uphold the administration's foreign affairs, national security and economic policies resulting in the protection of a government's integrity both internationally and domestically. In other words, there is no risk of loss of confidence in the country due to the death, indictment or resignation of the president. In fact, when U.S. President Richard Nixon resigned as a result of the Watergate scandal, the vice president filled in for the remainder of his presidency and prevented a power vacuum. The same thing happened when eight U.S. presidents, including Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, died while in office.
 
In South America, where presidential impeachments happen often, vice presidents assume control preventing a leadership vacuum. Even if a president is impeached, the opposition does not get a chance to gain control of government so the rationale for impeachment is clearly limited to corruption and improprieties involving elections. And the impeachment process usually takes between several months to a year. It is hard to find in other countries events like the ones transpiring in Korea where minor mistakes made by the president become excuses to hold early elections by fueling mass protests and rushed impeachment proceedings. There is nothing to gain from such actions.
 
 But when we revised our Constitution in 1987, we adopted a single, five-year presidential term but made the terrible mistake of failing to require a vice president to serve alongside the president. There is no vice president to assume power if the president dies, resigns or is impeached. As a result, the Constitution stipulated that new elections be held within 60 days after an incumbent president dies, steps down or is impeached (Article 68, Clause 2 of the Constitution). As a result, the death, resignation or impeachment of a president do not end with the actual events, but trigger a 60-day power vacuum and an anomaly known as early presidential elections. More specifically, the opposition, which has gained control of the National Assembly, can be tempted to use even minor mistakes committed by a president to seek his or her resignation or impeachment and call for early elections to wrest control of government. This is at the heart of the campaign that has taken place in Korea since November calling for the president's resignation or impeachment.
 
What would have happened if our country adopted a vice presidential system like the U.S. or South American countries when we revised our Constitution in 1987? If Park was forced to resign or was impeached by taking the blame for the corruption scandal involving her confidante called Choi Soon-sil, the vice president who also hails from the same political party would have assumed leadership. The next presidential election would have been held as scheduled in December of 2017. The opposition would have had nothing to gain.
 
Would the opposition parties, candle-light protesters, prosecutors and news media still have joined forces to concoct a ludicrous, W84.5 billion bribery charge to impeach the president? Would they have attempted to target the president for character assassination by citing her actions during the Sewol ferry tragedy that happened two years ago? Would the National Assembly have put the impeachment bill to vote less than a week after formulating the rationale to call for the president’s ouster? And would candle-light protesters be demanding the Constitutional Court to reach a ruling by January?
 
I don’t think so. As seen in the aristocratic class during the Chosun Dynasty, whose modern-day counterparts are politicians, journalists and prosecutors, lost interest in national security and public welfare a long time ago. Politicians are only interested in power, while journalists are solely focused on dominating public opinion and prosecutors are striving to retain control over investigative powers, so that they can control state affairs to remain in power. These forces will not bother to exert an ounce of energy if there is no guarantee they could grab power. They claim to be patriots, democrats and revolutionaries only on the surface. But they are only interested in power. The beliefs and practices we saw during the Chosun dynasty are being repeated today.
 
I blame our leadership for creating the automatic suspension of powers, which is not only irrational, but goes against the principle of equality and due process, and gave selfish aristocrats and a unicameral National Assembly an excuse to pursue a rushed impeachment with the temptation of grabbing power in the absence of a vice president to succeed a president who has been restricted to a single, five-year term. Perhaps they are to blame for the unnecessary crisis facing our people and country?
 
Jan. 2, 2017