by Kim Pyung-woo (Attorney and former head of Korean Bar Association)

U.S. President Andrew Johnson was impeached after he was accused of sacking his secretary of war after two thirds of Congress overruled the president's veto power and revised a law to require congressional approval for the head of state to sack his secretaries of state. Following the U.S. Civil War, the job of the secretary of war shifted from finding sources of funding for the war to implementing restoration projects. The actual cause was a standoff between the president and the Senate majority over how to rehabilitate the devastated southern states and over the treatment of freed slaves. From that perspective, it was a conflict of policies.

The situation was different for President Bill Clinton. On the surface, Clinton faced impeachment on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. But the actual problem was an affair the married, 49-year-old president had with a White House intern in her early 20s named Monica Lewinsky. The U.S. is a nation based on Christian principles and extramarital affairs are seriously frowned upon. And sex in the workplace involving a younger female employee is considered a social taboo. In legal terms, such acts constitute sexual harassment. Although not subject to criminal charges, such an offense violated the core Christian moral principles of American society and greatly disappointed the public. From that perspective, Clinton's impeachment took issue with the president's moral standards.

On the surface, President Roh Moo-hyun faced impeachment on charges that he violated the duty of public officials to maintain political neutrality. But the actual problem was with his high-school education level in a society that prizes university degrees or higher academic achievements, and the fact that a high-school grad beat a rival candidate who graduated from the prestigious Seoul National University and went on to pass the bar exam to become a Supreme Court justice. That fact alone seriously hurt the pride of conservative members of the National Assembly. On top of that, Roh's thick Gyeongsang Province accent and unrestrained comments supporting progressive policies appear to have further irked conservatives, prompting them to take steps to impeach him. Roh's inclinations to make anti-American comments and rumors that his father-in-law used to be a communist did not help him win points among conservatives either. All of these factors played a role in prompting lawmakers to seek to impeach Roh and hold new presidential elections. The impeachment bill was primarily based on discriminatory attitudes toward the president in light of his academic and social background as well as manner of speech that did not make him blend in with conservative lawmakers. The phenomenon was reminiscent of the factionalism that was rampant during the Chosun dynasty based on groups hailing from different schools of Confucian thinking and geographic regions of Korea.

On the surface, President Park Geun-hye is facing impeachment on charges that she received around W70 billion in bribes from major business conglomerates. If that is true, she should be sent to jail immediately rather than face impeachment. But such charges are completely fabricated. The money was donated to non-profit foundations and those organizations still possess the money. A few past Korean presidents established non-profit foundations and received donations from major business groups. No violations of the law and no morally questionable acts have been committed.

From the perspective of the writer, the actual reason behind Park's impeachment stems from her lame-duck status during the final year of her single, five-year term and the fact that she is a single woman with no family, friends or close coworkers. Opposition party lawmakers appear to be using those traits of the president to wrest power from her. Park's impeachment does not stem from clashes over policies, moral conflict or cultural differences. It involves an unethical attempt to wrest control of the government from a single woman by pinning ludicrous charges on her and driving her out of office.

Let's compared the impeachment processes in Korea and the U.S. The U.S. president serves a four-year term, while a House representative's term lasts two years and six years for senators. House representatives are elected every two years. There are 435 House representatives and each state elects a number of officials based on their population ratio. That is why the lower house of the U.S. parliament is called the 'House of Representatives.' Democrats and Republicans hold a majority seat shifting places periodically. The House of Representatives takes more than six months to table and ratify an impeachment bill. Representatives who initiate the impeachment seek out agreements from their colleagues. If their numbers reach a certain level, a special committee deliberates on the impeachment motion, which is then sent to the judiciary committee. That committee seeks the advice of legal experts to determine the legitimacy of the charges. The initial focus is to look for precedents. An impeachment motion gains legitimacy if there is a similar precedent. Without a precedent, the impeachment lacks authority and it becomes extremely difficult to mobilize the support of the Senate in a society that considers precedents as law.

The next important factor is evidence. According to the U.S. constitution, only admissible evidence is allowed to be presented in front of a court of law. The House judiciary committee must determine based on the opinions of advisors that a piece of evidence is legitimate. Only then can the evidence be used in the impeachment trial. If the judiciary committee writes up the impeachment motion, it is presented before a plenary session and put to vote. The vote results are open to the public and members of the public and the press are allowed to observe the ballot process. Representatives gather the opinions of residents in their constituencies and goes public with the views they have collected. It is quite different than the process in Korea where a handful of senior lawmakers collect resignations en masse before putting the impeachment motion to vote. If that happens in the U.S., the news media would not sit still. Such acts will be viewed as anti-democratic and be reported to the House ethics committee.

If the impeachment motion is upheld by a majority (218 votes) of the members of the House of Representatives, it is handed over to the Senate. The U.S. strictly adheres to the principle of innocence until proven guilty. As a result, the president's official powers are not suspended simply because he has been accused. The president is not subject to any disadvantages until the Senate reaches a decision, while nobody is allowed to treat the official being impeached as being guilty. The public, the news media nor the House of Representatives places significant importance on the impeachment bill. The focus in on the decision of the Senate. The U.S. public and news media simply wait until the Senate reaches a decision. There fanatical outbursts lauding the public's protests as a 'democratic revolution' or 'popular uprising' as seen in Korea.

Let us look at the impeachment process in Korea. Impeachment proceedings have taken place in Korea only during times when the opposition parties accounted for a majority of the seats in the National Assembly. When a president's mistakes lead to weakened approval ratings, the opposition camp, which has gained control over the National Assembly, puts together an impeachment motion in less than a month. There is hardly any process in which a lawmaker tabling the impeachment motion presents it to his or her colleagues and the public to view in order to hear their thoughts. The impeachment motion is put together as soon as the senior members of the opposition party agree to pursue steps to impeach the president. And about a week later, the motion is put to vote, which last just a few hours. The whole process lasts just around a month. Each charge listed on the impeachment motion is not put to vote individually, but the impeachment motion is put to vote as a package. There is no debate held prior to the vote. I wonder if there is a process where the impeachment motion is presented for review by legal experts. There appears to be no step to investigate the charges. There also appears to be no effort to investigate the evidence being presented or to consider their admissibility in court. And there is no process of hearing the views of voters or to explain the process to the public. How many Koreans do you think actually read the impeachment bill against Park? I wonder how many lawmakers even read the impeachment bill.
Lawmakers prepare their resignations en masse before voting on an impeachment bill. It is a de-facto pledge that they will not betray their party. After the vote, the side that won belts out victory chants and offer toasts. They appear overjoyed to have bagged the president and believe that the reins of government have now fallen into their hands. In contrast, the losing side rip their clothes, destroy their desks and wail in sorrow. Their anguish stems from having lost control of the government. Neither side is aware of the fact that the impeachment bill is merely a list of charges and not a ruling, while the nine Constitutional Court justices are responsible for delivering the final verdict. Our lawmakers seem to be oblivious of the Constitution. And the news media is no different. The only thing they see is a power struggle. They are not engaging in politics, but war. The entire process is reminiscent of a turf war between the Japanese yakuza. What we are seeing is a reprisal of the factional feuding Chosun dynasty bureaucrats were famous for. This is very depressing. Korea is said to rank among the world's top 15 countries in terms of its economic size. But it ranks among the bottom in terms of its politics. In fact, Korean politics appears to be trapped in the 18th century. We are in no position to point fingers at North Korean politics.

Jan. 9, 2017