The Koreas

South Korea’s 2-Term Presidency Debate: A Double-Edged Sword for Democratic Reform

Recent Features

The Koreas | Politics | East Asia

South Korea’s 2-Term Presidency Debate: A Double-Edged Sword for Democratic Reform

The idea of a two-term presidency has found resonance across the political spectrum. What would it mean for South Korean democracy?

South Korea’s 2-Term Presidency Debate: A Double-Edged Sword for Democratic Reform

Cheong Wa Dae (also called the “Blue House”), the presidential palace of South Korea.

Credit: Depositphotos

Following the success in the April legislative election, the Rebuilding Korea Party, currently the third-largest political entity in South Korea, suggested a comprehensive package of seven constitutional amendments. 

Among the proposals was a provision to allow presidents to serve a maximum of two four-year terms, a departure from the longstanding single-term system adopted in 1987 as a safeguard against dictatorship. If implemented, South Korean presidents will be allowed to hold office for a maximum of two terms, and the single term would be reduced to four years, equivalent to the U.S. presidential system. 

Notably, the idea of a two-term presidency has found resonance across the political spectrum. Former President Moon Jae-in and then his one-time justice minister, Cho Kuk – now the leader of the RKP – voiced support for the change. Conservative former President Park Geun-hye and Democratic Party (DP) leader Lee Jae-myung had also advocated for the reform when they were presidential candidates.

Public opinion appears to be aligned with the proposal, as polls by KBS and Hankook Research indicate that a majority of South Korean citizens favor the two-term presidency despite the nation’s historical trauma of military dictatorships and associated atrocities.

Potential Benefits of a Two-Term Presidency 

Supporters see three benefits in allowing the two-term presidency. 

First, a two-term presidency could enable presidents to shepherd long-term initiatives to fruition, unencumbered by the constraints of a single term. Policies concerning infrastructure development, housing, birth rates, and even foreign policy visions frequently demand gradual implementation to reshape incentive structures and yield tangible outcomes. Abrupt shifts in these critical areas, driven by partisan divides between successive administrations, can undermine progress and render previous efforts futile.

The practice of hastily enacting controversial legislation in the waning months of a presidential term, only to witness its revocation by the subsequent administration, has been a recurrent point of contention in South Korean politics. A two-term presidency could incentivize greater caution and prudence when pursuing potentially divisive policies, as presidents seek re-election and the mandate to continue their agenda.

The realm of foreign policy stands to benefit significantly from the continuity afforded by a two-term system. Experts have long questioned the consistency of South Korea’s diplomatic approach across administrations, citing stark divergences between Moon and his successor, current President Yoon Suk-yeol, in their stances toward Japan, China, and North Korea. 

Such shifts have lately prompted concerns about the potential derailment of hard-won achievements, such as the strengthened Japan-South Korea-U.S. trilateral cooperation and improved bilateral ties between Japan and South Korea under Yoon. By allowing for extended tenures, a two-term presidency could mitigate the “Korea risk” – the apprehension that South Korean foreign policy may abruptly shift with each political transition. 

Second, a two-term presidency could strengthen the system of checks and balances. South Korean presidents have historically grappled with the phenomenon of the “lame duck syndrome,” characterized by a significant erosion of public support during their fourth year in office, with approval ratings plummeting by at least 20 percent across administrations. This waning influence has often emboldened outgoing presidents to pursue policies that conflict with their successor’s agenda or appoint key personnel in the judiciary and other institutions.

Currently, there exists no practical mechanism to counter such actions when presidents veer away from the public will as their terms draw to a close. The absence of direct electoral incentives for presidents in legislative or regional elections, coupled with the ineffective application of impeachment underscores the need for enhanced accountability.

Third, the adoption of a two-term presidency presents an opportunity to streamline South Korea’s electoral system, fostering greater policy coherence and reducing voter fatigue. At present, presidential, parliamentary, and local elections occur at different intervals, leading to potential inconsistencies between regional and central government policies.

Aligning regional and presidential elections into a single cycle could promote nationwide policy consistency while curbing the exorbitant costs associated with frequent electoral processes, estimated at around 300 billion won ($216 million) for each local election cycle.

Moreover, public perception data suggests that South Koreans view local elections as the least significant, with the two lowest voter turnouts occurring in 2002 (48.9 percent) and 2022 (50.9 percent) – years that coincided with presidential elections, although both polls were conducted months apart. This implies that local contests are overshadowed by the pivotal national polls and voter fatigue. Synchronizing these elections could elevate the significance of local contests, transforming them into more meaningful events that capture the electorate’s attention.

The Populism Paradox

While the virtues of a two-term presidency in South Korea warrant careful consideration, one key concern is the risk of increased populism, as presidents, previously insulated from direct electoral incentives, may now be tempted to pander to public sentiment in pursuit of a second term.

While this dynamic could foster greater accountability, it ironically could also disincentivize bold and potentially unpopular policy actions that are necessary for the nation’s long-term interests. Yoon’s approach to strengthening bilateral relations with Japan, despite its domestic unpopularity, exemplifies the kind of difficult but consequential decision that could become increasingly arduous for a president seeking re-election.

On the domestic front, the allure of populist policies – such as cash handouts or fiscally imprudent measures designed to court voters – might overshadow the pursuit of more balanced and sustainable economic strategies.

The Path Forward

All this, however, depends on how the RKP and other political entities advance this agenda of presidential reform, which has thus far failed to gain significant momentum. If the proposal gains traction and Seoul seriously contemplates this pivotal constitutional amendment, it is crucial to recognize that it represents the dawn of a new “republic”– one built upon the sacrifices of thousands of democratic activists and students who fought for a more just and equitable society. 

Hence, if the two-term presidency is to be implemented, the constitutional reform must transcend narrow political interests, such as reducing the incumbent president’s term or vice versa. It should be a collaborative effort between the president and the National Assembly, driven by a shared commitment to creating a cohesive and sustainable future for South Korean politics – one that upholds the ideals of democracy, accountability, and the nation’s long-term interests.