One important and interesting article, written by Robert E. Kelly and Jaekwon Suh, appeared in Foreign Affairs on February 12, 2025. It was great to see that the article deals with such a timely and critical issue: the roots of South Korea’s current crisis stemming from the impeachment process regarding President Yoon Suk-yeol.
Most of all, I have to make it clear at the outset that I do agree with the article’s suggestions in principle: reforms are needed for South Korea’s presidential system and for the makeup of the National Assembly. I however disagree with the authors’ rationale.
While well-intentioned, I am afraid that there are many problems with the writing in question. First of all, many of the issues the authors present can be identified in other countries as well, for instance the U.S., particularly during Donald Trump’s presidency. Thus, it would be a mistake to regard those issues as the roots of South Korea’s crisis. Moreover, the article sometimes presents factually inaccurate claims.
The U.S. politics and President Trump
First, the article claims that the repeated impeachment attempts have been made in South Korea, because “power is highly concentrated in the presidency, and deepening polarization is driving ever-fiercer fights over that office.” I am afraid that this is not unique to South Korea. Take the U.S. and President Trump. The world observed fierce fights and divisions in the U.S., most notably during the last presidential election in 2024. In addition, the authors seem to forget that people often call the U.S. presidency the most powerful office in the world, meaning the U.S. presidents possess significant power and influence in America and beyond. Therefore, the article’s criticism against South Korea’s presidential system is unfair.
Second, the article claims that “South Korea’s political system needs bold reform to diffuse power and remove the incentives for presidents to attempt to rule by decree. […] discussion of such reforms started to build in December [2024].” Again, I am afraid that this is not unique to South Korea. Let me take President Trump. His “rule by decree” severely disrupts domestic order in the U.S. and international stability across the world. That is because the U.S. presidents have too much power and influence. Also, in South Korea, the discussion of presidential system has taken place for a long time since 1987, when an institutional democracy began to shape. Furthermore, the authors themselves state that “reform has been widely discussed in South Korea for years.” Hence, it is not right to say that such discussion only “started to build in December” following Yoon’s declaration of martial law.
Third, the article claims that “the promise of holding the presidential office inspires intense, zero-sum competition between South Korea’s two main political parties” along with “[a] worsening cultural cleavage between the political left and right,” because “presidency is imbued with a lot of power.” Again let me take the U.S., where two major parties, the Republicans and Democrats, often engage in zero-sum competition for the White House. What about the UK? Although Britain does not follow a presidential system, its two main parties, the Conservatives and Labours, similarly engage in intense competition for the Downing Street. Therefore, the article has missed the point.
No to the impeachment of Roh
Fourth, the article repeatedly claims that the former President Roh Moo-hyun was impeached in 2004. This is not true. Yes, the National Assembly’s motion to impeach him was passed, but the impeachment was rejected by the Constitutional Court. In South Korea, it is the Constitutional Court that has the final say on the impeachment proceedings. After the Court’s decision, Roh Moo-hyun returned to the presidential office and carried on his duty until 2008, completing his five-year term since 2003. For some reason, the article does not mention this fact.
Fifth, the motion to impeach Roh Moo-hyun was passed not because of his abuse of “excessive presidentialism,” but because of strong backlash against Roh Moo-hyun’s initially progressive agendas and idealism. It is of paramount importance to note that a formal reason of the impeachment proceedings was related to Roh’s remarks on the then general election. His words were taken by some political factions as a supporting message for his own Uri Party. Having been deeply disturbed by Roh’s presidential election victory and progressive idealism, South Korean conservatives and seemingly moderate forces within his former Millennium Democratic Party got together: they argued that Roh violated the principle of political neutrality. This move was clearly against the public’s mood at the time. It was then not surprising that Roh’s Uri Party secured outright victory in April 2004, one month after the impeachment motion.
Moon on the Moon
Sixth, the article claims that the former liberal President Moon Jae-in “sidestepped the legislature as he pushed a highly divisive policy of détente with North Korea.” According to the article, this is an example of the case that “South Korean presidents are frequently tempted to wield their personal authority to force through their preferred policies.” It is not clear what the authors mean by “sidestepped the legislature.” Does that mean President Moon ignored the National Assembly and executed his personal authority to pursue the policy regardless of public opinion? If that is the case, I am afraid that the matter has been gravely mistaken. For the record, Moon enjoyed very high approval ratings thanks to his policy toward North Korea, among others.
Seventh, the article claims that “[t]he best outcome in the short term would be for Yoon to resign and admit he went too far in trying to declare martial law.” With all due respect, I strongly disagree with the claim. The best outcome in the short and long terms would be for the Constitutional Court to uphold the impeachment of Yoon. If Yoon resigns, South Korea would lose an opportunity to correctly document his wrongdoing. Apart from that, it is important to note that he cannot resign because the Constitutional Court is already considering the case. Furthermore, as South Korean people witnessed during the impeachment trial, there is absolutely no possibility that Yoon would admit that he went too far.
Democracy is working in South Korea
Eighth, the article claims that “[t]he mere fact of three impeachments since 2004 suggests the South Korean presidency is too powerful.” Again, it should be noted that President Roh’s impeachment case was dismissed by the Constitutional Court. Hence, the phrase “three impeachments since 2004” is not correct. In addition, I would challenge the idea that the claim proves the excessive power of South Korean presidents. That is, the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye in 2016 and the recent proceedings regarding Yoon show that democracy is working in South Korea. In other words, they prove the resilience of South Korean democracy. Speaking of which, if “excessive presidentialism” prevailed in South Korea, those presidents in question should not have been subject to impeachment in the first place; they could have avoided the impeachment attempts in one way or another by using their excessive power.
Taken together, while very well-intentioned (I sincerely mean it), the article has failed to present factually correct and logical arguments.
[Photo by Daily Minjoo (Democratic Party), CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons]
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.
Dr. Sungju Park-Kang is Research Fellow at the DPRK Strategic Research Center, KIMEP University, Kazakhstan and Adjunct Professor at the Centre for East Asian Studies, University of Turku, Finland. Park-Kang was formerly Assistant Professor of International Relations and Korean Studies at Leiden University, the Netherlands and the University of Central Lancashire, UK.
Read the full article here
