[Lee Byung-jong] Danger of too much power?

Korea Herald

a day ago

After six months of excruciating political uncertainty and public anxiety, South Korea has ushered in a new era with the election of President Lee Jae-myung on Wednesday. The initial response has been broadly positive: The stock market surged, and allies such as Japan and the US offered swift messages of support and continued cooperation. Lee's decisive victory — garnering over 17 million votes, the most for any Korean president — gives him a strong and clear mandate to pursue his policy agenda.
However, the scale of Lee's victory could also be cause for concern. With his Democratic Party of Korea holding an overwhelming majority in the National Assembly, the Lee administration may be tempted to overextend its executive power. The judiciary, increasingly seen as vulnerable to public pressure, may not be able to serve as an effective check. Lee's firm control over his party, filled with his loyalists, further eliminates internal constraints, heightening fears of a concentration of power.
The first signs of potential executive overreach appeared on day one of Lee's presidency, when the ruling party put forward a bill to expand the number of Supreme Court justices from 14 to as many as 30. This proposal, floated even before the election following the Court's ruling against Lee for election law violations, is officially framed as a response to the judiciary's heavy caseload. Yet critics argue it is a thinly veiled attempt to stack the Court with pro-government justices.
Other controversial bills are likely to follow now that executive and legislative powers are united under one party. These include measures to strengthen protections for unionized workers and rice farmers, and to impose tighter regulations on major corporate shareholders. Such bills were repeatedly vetoed by former President Yoon Suk Yeol on the grounds that they would stifle economic growth. Another previously blocked bill, which would expand civil society influence in public broadcasting oversight, is also expected to be revived despite concerns about ideological bias, as civil society groups in Korea often lean liberal and support the Democratic Party's agenda. These initiatives are likely to be pushed through in the early days of Lee's presidency.
Concerns about the concentration of power are compounded by the current disarray of the opposition People Power Party, following the impeachment of President Yoon. While the ruling party, along with its allies, commands a near two-thirds majority in the Assembly, the opposition is fractured — torn by internal debates over the legitimacy of Yoon's impeachment, especially his imposition of martial law in December. The party was sharply divided between pro and anti-impeachment factions. With the next parliamentary elections still three years away, the opposition's ability to check President Lee's administration appears weak at best.
This concentration of power threatens the foundations of Korean democracy, still fragile in the aftermath of the failed marshal law declaration. Similar patterns of democratic erosion have emerged globally — in Hungary, Poland, Turkey, and other nations that maintain the form of democracy through elections while systematically weakening checks and balances, silencing dissent and undermining independent institutions such as the press and civil society. These so-called 'elected autocracies' or 'illiberal democracies' consolidate power under the guise of democratic legitimacy.
Even the United States — long regarded as a beacon of democracy — has shown signs of democratic backsliding. The newly returned Trump administration has increasingly relied on executive orders to bypass Congress on contentious issues such as immigration and tariffs. Like the aforementioned regimes, US President Donald Trump has targeted the media, demonized critics and used federal agencies to investigate political opponents. His fights against higher educational institutions like Harvard University and moves to reduce or close federal government agencies are accused of executive overreach.
Yet the US system retains important guardrails. Many of Trump's executive actions have been blocked by the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, despite its conservative majority. Midterm elections, seen as a confidence vote on the presidency, serve as a vital democratic check, and the federal structure ensures that state governments can limit federal overreach.
South Korea also operates a system of local autonomy, with major cities like Seoul and Busan still under opposition control. However, local governments remain weak in practice, as the central government controls budgeting and other key decisions. Given the ruling party's big win in the presidential election, next year's local elections are unlikely to yield many opposition victories. Unlike the US, Korea lacks midterm elections, meaning the opposition may remain marginalized for the next three years.
Concerns over excessive presidential power are not new in Korea. Whenever presidents have faced their downfall — whether by impeachment or scandals of power abuse — calls for constitutional reform have resurfaced. Proposals have included shifting to a cabinet system or introducing power-sharing arrangements with a prime minister or vice president. In this latest election, all major candidates pledged to reduce the power of the presidency to prevent another 'imperial presidency.' Whether President Lee will follow through on such promises remains to be seen.