‘The will of the people’ is the decisive difference that determines the fate of the president.
“Impeachment must be pursued in a careful and restrained manner.”
“The people are shouting, ‘We can’t live like this,’ but those who are drunk on the power play of state affairs are shouting, ‘It will be like this forever.’”
Park Chan-dae, floor leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, held the microphone in front of Sungnyemun Gate in Jung-gu, Seoul at 6:30 pm on the 9th and raised his voice. Floor leader Park said, “He is a powerful democratic citizen who brought down unjust power through the candlelight revolution,” and added, “With the organized power of awake citizens and an acting conscience, let’s put an end to Kim Kun-hee’s kingdom.”
This event was the second rally of the Democratic Party-led ‘National Action Day to Condemn Kim Kun-hee and Yoon Seok-yeol’s Abuse in State Affairs and Call for a Special Prosecutor.’ The five opposition parties, including the Fatherland Innovation Party, the Progressive Party, the Basic Income Party, and the Social Democratic Party, participated. This afternoon, large-scale anti-President Yoon Seok-yeol rallies were held one after another in downtown Seoul. Earlier, at 4 p.m. in the Sejong-daero area, the headquarters of the movement for the resignation of the Yoon Seok-yeol regime, in which the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions and others participated, held the ’First Rally for the Resignation of the Yoon Seok-yeol regime’ and began demanding in earnest the resignation of President Yoon.
The Minority Opposition Party, the Fatherland Innovation Party, is openly calling for the impeachment of President Yoon, but the main opposition Democratic Party has not yet officially raised such a slogan. However, there are many views that he has effectively started a ‘movement to resign from the regime’ by using flower signs such as ‘impeachment’, ‘resignation’, and ‘term shortening’. It’s only been 7 years since we experienced the first impeachment of a president in constitutional history, and the public has begun to recall the memories of that time, either out of support or concern, saying, “If this continues, we could face impeachment again.”
Lee Cheol-hee, who served as Senior Secretary to the President for Political Affairs under the Moon Jae-in administration, said in the book ‘How Bad Power Collapses’ (Medici) published on the 6th, “Seeing what he is doing, impeachment seems to be the only answer.” This is said about President Y
“Public sentiment is in a dilemma. I’m in a dilemma. It is burdensome to move forward with impeachment, and it is not appropriate to give up on impeachment and step back. (omitted) What should I do? “We cannot continue to ignore this situation, so the concerns of the people will inevitably deepen.”
Former Chief Lee is better known as a ‘rational political debater’. His book, subtitled ‘The Politics of Impeachment,’ can serve as a calm guide to this dilemma. What former Chief Lee emphasizes throughout the book is that ‘the impeachment system is essentially a political procedure and phenomenon.’ We often only approach it by asking, “Is this a reason for impeachment?” or “Is the reason serious enough to impeach?” However, when looking at cases that decided the fate of a president both at home and abroad, his analysis is that the political context, such as popular demands and the structure of Congress, was more important than the severity of the grounds for impeachment.
● “The impeachment system is inherently political.”
In order to attempt impeachment, there must be a good reason. The Constitution of the Republic of Korea only stipulates ‘when the Constitution or law is violated’ as follows.
Constitution of the Republic of Korea
Article 65 The President, Prime Minister, State Councilor, heads of administrative departments, judges and judges of the Constitutional Court, members of the National Election Commission, Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection, members of the Board of Audit and other public officials prescribed by law violate the Constitution or laws in the performance of their duties. At one time, the National Assembly can vote on impeachment.
Former Senior Secretary Lee says, “In addition to the legal evaluation of how close the reasons for impeachment are to the reasons stipulated in the Constitution, we must also consider the political evaluation of how much public trust is gained.” If the National Assembly passes a bill to impeach the president, the Constitutional Court, which adjudicates the impeachment, will consider the seriousness of the violation of the law. Here, former Chief Lee brings out the political nature of the impeachment system.
“As there are virtually no quantitative standards to confirm its ‘materiality,’ we have no choice but to focus on qualitative aspects, such as whether or not there is stable and bipartisan support from the public. “The President was elected by the people through a democratic process called elections, so the decision to deny him must absolutely respect the will of the people.”
This is not necessarily a Korean problem. Former Senior Secretary Lee pointed out that even in the United States, impeachment is pursued for political motives. However, collective political reason, such as public support or resistance, is exercised and determines the success or failure of the attempt.
.
Here, former Chief Lee draws out the following checklist that determines ‘failed impeachment’ and ‘successful impeachment’. It concerns the scandal that is the starting point of impeachment, the factional arrangement of Congress, the factional arrangement of the ruling party or ruling coalition, presidential leadership, and public opinion.
Compare the case of former President Roh Moo-hyun, whose partisan impeachment by the opposition party ended in failure ahead of the 2004 general election, and the case of former President Park Geun-hye, who was eventually removed from office by the Constitutional Court in what was termed the ‘Candlelight Revolution’, and you will nod your head.
● “The success or failure of impeachment depends on obtaining public consent.”
Former Chief Lee laments the current political situation, saying, “Impeachment is being used as the best means of venting one’s anger.” “Impeachment was designed as a device that could be mobilized when a public official committed a serious mistake and it is difficult to keep him or her in that position,” he said, “but it is now being used as a weapon to eliminate hostile or disliked people.” This refers to the reality that the impeachment system, which was created to protect democracy, endangers democracy.
He undermines the operating principle of the separation of powers called checks and balances and criticizes the President for being unable to overcome the ‘temptation of tyranny’ and the National Assembly for failing to overcome the ‘temptation of impeachment.’
Former Senior Secretary Lee first pointed out that “institutional restraint is an essential norm for the smooth operation of the presidential system.” He said that the starting point for former Presidents Roh Moo-hyun and Park Geun-hye in facing the National Assembly’s impeachment attempt was that “the two presidents committed the mistake of creating a favorable environment for an impeachment attempt by not restraining themselves and confronting the National Assembly.”
At the same time, he pointed out that the National Assembly should not abuse its impeachment power. Former Senior Secretary Lee said, “The politics of impeachment creates a confrontation between pros and cons, causes people to ignore important cracks and agendas in society, and creates emotional polarization,” adding, “The right to impeachment is granted only when there is a clear and direct violation sufficient to deny democratic legitimacy.” “We must exercise it,” he said.
So, where should the judgment that ‘it is difficult to keep (the president) in that position’ ultimately be based? Former Chief Lee pointed out that it was the ‘will of the people’ (expressed as ‘a wave of public sentiment’, ‘popular response’, ‘social resistance’, ‘people’s trust’, etc.). He said, “Roh Moo-hyun’s impeachment was driven by the opposition party coalition, but it could not go beyond the level of partisan solidarity because it did not receive support from the public square.” He also said, “In the impeachment of Park Geun-hye, a broad impeachment coalition was formed under the leadership of Gwangjang, while the anti-impeachment coalition was minimal.”
In particular, in the current ‘impeachment dilemma’ situation in November 2024, the case of former President Park Geun-hye needs to be looked into further.
rn
Former Senior Secretary Lee said, “Because impeachment is the power of a Congress composed of political parties, the legitimacy of impeachment depends on whether bipartisan support can be obtained. “One of the indicators of this bipartisanship is the support of the ruling party or part of it,” he said. He pointed out that during the time of former President Park, the changes in the landscape of the National Assembly that changed due to the impeachment (the withdrawal of Reps. Kim Moo-sung and Yoo Seung-min from the Saenuri Party and the creation of the Bareun Party in 2016 and 2017) were indicators confirming the legitimacy and popularity of Park Geun-hye’s impeachment. The point is that there was a division in the ruling party that was not seen during the impeachment of Roh Moo-hyun.
“Because impeachment is a political process, the public will, as confirmed through elections or changes in the political landscape, has no choice but to influence the impeachment process (initiation of an impeachment bill in the National Assembly to the impeachment trial by the Constitutional Court). The success or failure of impeachment depends on whether the impeachment frame obtains public consent, and the impeachment of Park Geun-hye was successful by reaching a public consensus that transcended partisan conflict.”
in Korea’s two impeachments, the Constitutional Court also carefully considered the will of the people and reached a conclusion. His analysis is that “‘partisan impeachment’ is dismissed, and ‘popular impeachment’ is cited.” Former Chief Secretary Lee’s insight is something to think about in the future political situation where we cannot know how it will unfold.
● “Impeachment is not a panacea, nor is it a report of imputation.”
Former Senior Secretary Lee said that the impeachment cases of Roh Moo-hyun and Park Geun-hye confirmed contradictory facts about Korean democracy. One is that Korean democracy has been consolidated to the point where the ills of the presidential system can be peacefully resolved through the constitutional remedy of impeachment. Another is that neither the President nor the National Assembly knows how to control their power to the extent that the extreme measure of impeachment is used as a means of power struggle.
“As a means of checking the president, impeachment is neither omnipotent nor a means of imputation. “The impeachment system is merely an institutional tool that can be used cautiously only for very exceptional misconduct or crimes.”
The reality is not like that. Former Chief Lee diagnosed that the abuse of the power to impeach and the routine use of impeachment has become a new political phenomenon. However, ‘impeachment politics’ further polarizes and devastates society. Thus, he concludes, “Just as the president’s abuse of power is poison, Congress’s abuse of impeachment power is also poison.”
Former Chief Lee nevertheless urges. There is a ‘fact that must not be forgotten’ in the series of impeachment processes.
“’The president provides the excuse for impeachment!’ Also, ‘The president’s power is the greatest!’ Therefore, the president must exercise restraint and patience. “That is the most powerful way to control Congress’s abuse of impeachment power.”
Former Presidents Roh Moo-hyun and Park Geun-hye illustrate the complexities and political dynamics surrounding the impeachment process in South Korea. Each case serves as a lesson in how public consent and partisan politics can significantly influence the outcome of impeachment proceedings.
Roh Moo-hyun’s Impeachment
Roh Moo-hyun’s impeachment attempt in 2004 by opposition parties ultimately failed, largely due to a lack of public support. Although the impeachment was driven by political factions within the National Assembly, it did not resonate with the larger electorate, resulting in a failure to maintain momentum beyond partisan solidarity. This suggests that while impeachment can be initiated by political motives, its success hinges on broader public sentiment, which was not in favor of Roh. The failed impeachment attempts highlighted the importance of institutional restraint, with Roh facing criticism for provoking the National Assembly rather than fostering cooperation.
Park Geun-hye’s Impeachment
In stark contrast, Park Geun-hye’s impeachment in 2016 succeeded due to widespread public outrage, manifesting as the “Candlelight Revolution”. This grassroots movement demonstrated a public consensus that transcended partisan divides, advocating for her removal following allegations of corruption and abuse of power. Park’s impeachment is a quintessential example of how a situation can escalate from political contention to widespread social mobilization, leading to a significant political outcome. The legitimacy of her impeachment was further buttressed by notable divisions within her own ruling party, indicating a broader loss of support that was key to the process.
The Role of Public Consent
Former Senior Secretary Lee emphasizes that the legitimacy of impeachment rests upon public consent, which is essential for garnering bipartisan support essential for initiating impeachment proceedings. The contrasting outcomes of Roh and Park’s impeachments underline how impeachment is not merely a legal or constitutional mechanism but a major political process influenced by the will of the people. They also bring to light the dangers of impeachment becoming a weapon for political vendetta rather than a tool for safeguarding democracy.
Conclusion
The impeachment processes of Roh Moo-hyun and Park Geun-hye serve as reflections on the interplay between public opinion, party dynamics, and presidential accountability in South Korea. They highlight the critical need for a balance of power within the government and caution against the misuse of impeachment as a political weapon. As Lee articulates, the future of impeachment will depend heavily on public sentiment and the necessity of maintaining institutional integrity in upholding democracy. Understanding these historical contexts will be vital for navigating the challenges and political landscapes of contemporary governance in South Korea.