Seoul: Lee Jae-myung, presidential candidate of the Democratic Party of Korea, has reignited the long-dormant debate over constitutional reform, unveiling a comprehensive proposal on Facebook Sunday. His proposal features transitioning to a four-year presidential term with one possible reelection, instituting a runoff voting system, empowering the National Assembly to nominate the prime minister, and restraining presidential powers - including the veto and emergency decree authority. It also seeks to embed the spirit of Korea's democratic struggles - such as the May 18 Democratization Movement, the June Struggle of 1987, and the 2016-17 Candlelight Revolution - into the Constitution.
According to Yonhap News Agency, Lee's plan presents a reimagining of Korea's political architecture. By introducing a reelection option, it promises greater political accountability and the opportunity for continuity in leadership, addressing issues seen in the current five-year, non-renewable presidential term. Coupled with a runoff system, the proposal aims to ensure that any president elected commands a clear majority, potentially reducing the post-election polarization that has marked many recent administrations.
Equally significant is Lee's call to restructure power dynamics between the executive and legislature. Requiring the National Assembly's recommendation for prime ministerial appointments would represent a modest step toward power-sharing in a hyper-presidential system. His proposals to mandate parliamentary consent for appointments to key oversight institutions - including the Board of Audit and Inspection, the Constitutional Court, and major regulatory bodies - reflect a growing public desire to insulate democratic institutions from executive overreach.
Yet, for all its ambition, the proposal prompts several critical questions, foremost among them being feasibility. Constitutional amendments in Korea require the support of two-thirds of the National Assembly and a national referendum - a threshold nearly impossible to reach without bipartisan consensus. While Lee acknowledges this by proposing a phased and consensus-driven approach, he stops short of identifying which elements might serve as starting points for cross-party dialogue. The more contentious components - such as the president's veto limits or reallocation of authority over emergency powers - are unlikely to find traction among conservatives who view them as eroding executive sovereignty.
Timing, too, is politically delicate. Lee suggests a referendum could be held during the 2026 local elections or the 2028 general elections, signaling that implementation would fall to the next administration. This long-term plan risks reducing the proposal to symbolic politics rather than actionable policies. Although Lee has emphasized that reelection provisions would not apply to the incumbent president - per constitutional precedent - the optics of a candidate advocating for a system that could benefit his future political ambitions are inescapable.
Moreover, the political climate invites skepticism. Korea is emerging from a period marked by economic uncertainty, demographic challenges, and rising geopolitical tensions. To many voters, constitutional reform may appear a distant concern compared to immediate issues such as housing affordability, youth unemployment, and social inequality. If poorly communicated, the initiative could be perceived as a distraction from bread-and-butter issues, or worse, as a strategic maneuver in a high-stakes election.
Nevertheless, dismissing the proposal outright would be a missed opportunity. Korea's 1987 Constitution, while instrumental in institutionalizing democracy, was forged in a very different political era. Calls for a "Seventh Republic" reflect a legitimate desire to align the country's political system with its matured democratic values and socio-economic complexity. Embedding historical moments of democratic struggle into the constitutional preamble could provide a unifying civic narrative and symbolic foundation for future generations.
Ultimately, Lee's reform pledge is less a finished product than a starting point for national dialogue. Whether it becomes a serious road map for institutional evolution or remains a rhetorical gesture will depend not only on who wins the presidency but on the political establishment's willingness to transcend partisan divides. If approached with realism, inclusiveness, and patience, this could mark the first step in a long-overdue conversation about the future of Korean democracy.