Making it right might also help the GNP embrace it.
(Note: I have made a small change in the post due to some information on the “Rhee In-jae law” presented in the comments section.)
As folks may know by now, I am not a big fan of Roh Moo-hyun. However, he has been known to talk sense from time to time. His proposal for changing the terms of office for the presidency is one of those incidences.
In case you haven’t heard about it before, Roh would like to replace the current single five-year term with a four-year term and a chance to be reelected to a second four-year term (that is the system the USA currently uses). The president was limited to a single five-year term in the 1987 constitution in order to prevent a president from becoming a virtual dictator by rigging his reelections.
Members of the National Assembly are elected to four-year terms, which means that presidential and legislative elections are held at irregular intervals relative to each other. For example, the last National Assembly race was held 17 months after a presidential election and the next one will be only 5 months after a presidential election.
Things have not gone well for Roh’s proposal. Under Article 130 of the Constitution, he needs a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly to put his proposal up for a national vote. The only party that supports his idea (Uri) has well under half of the assembly’s seats. So, in order for his proposal to pass, he needs the support of the Grand National Party.
Alas, that support has not been forthcoming for a couple of reasons. First, the GNP habitually dismisses any proposal from Roh. Second, many in the GNP see it as an attempt to split the party ahead of the presidential vote this December.
Almost everyone who watches Korean politics believes that the GNP candidate will have the inside track on the presidency. The problem is that the top two candidates in all the polls (Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye) are both from the GNP. With the current splintering of the left, they will probably be poll leaders all the way through their party primaries currently scheduled for June. That being the case, whomever loses is projected to lose the primary will be tempted to leave the party and try his or her hand in the general election (Joe Lieberman’s victory in last year’s Connecticut Senate race shows it can be done successfully.).
If Roh’s proposed change effects the next presidential term, it would give the GNP primary loser even more incentive to split from the party since he or she would have to wait eight years instead of five for his or her next shot at the presidency (assuming that their would not be a serious primary challenge to a sitting president). Conversely, the left would have one year less of political exile before they would get another shot at the Blue House.
So, it is natural for the GNP to declare Roh’s proposed amendment dead on arrival.
Faced with that reality, Roh has decided to change tactics.
In an effort to salvage his flagging bid to amend the Constitution, President Roh Moo-hyun made an offer his successor can refuse: He would hold off on submitting the amendment bill this year as long as the major political parties and presidential contenders “positively promised” to launch it in the future.
The contenders, Mr. Roh stressed in a nationally televised press conference yesterday, must also vow to serve only four years as president, rather than the current five.
Frankly, this latest proposal seems downright dumb to me. What is the incentive for the next president to shorten his or her term? In any case, changing the term of a president while he is in office sets a bad precedent. If one president shortens his term while in office, by what logic can’t the next one lengthen his? It is just that sort of term changing shenanigans that the current term rules were designed to prevent.
Park Geun-hye already said that she would not shorten her term and I doubt Lee Myung-bak would agree either.
While I agree that it would be better for the presidential and legislative terms to have some kind of logical chronological relationship, I think that Roh is wrong about what the nature of that relationship should be. Rather than have the president and members of the legislature serve concurrent terms, their terms should overlap so that the 4-year legislative term ends in the middle of the 4-year presidential term.
Having concurrent terms for president and National Assembly posts could very well concentrate too much power on one side of the political spectrum; an imbalance that could not be corrected for four years.
On the other hand, overlapping terms would give the Korean electorate a chance to make a ‘mid-term assessment and correction’ of the president’s policies instead of using the blunt instrument of local elections. In a presidential system like Korea’s, such midterm elections would be an important check* on presidential power. If there are serious concerns about the plan limiting presidential power too much, the 99 proportional representative seats could stand for election concurrently with the presidencial term while the 2oo district seats could stand in midterm elections.
To make such a plan work, the next term of the National Assembly would have to be shortened to about 31 months instead of the standard 48. The next president would serve a single five-year term, as is stipulated in current draft of the constitution. The following president (elected in 2012) would serve a four-year term with one possible reelection.
The GNP would be more likely to agree to such a plan since it would decrease, rather than increase, the chances of the loser of their presidential primary bolting from the party. The losing candidate could take solace in the thought that he or she would have a shot at a longer period in office in the next election.
Any changes in legislative terms would clearly have be agreed on by the major parties before next April’s National Assembly elections, so the two side would have to agree to the change soon in order to get it up for referendum on time.
Nobody in the Korean government is asking my opinion but this is what I would tell them if they did.
My email box is always open.
*(I am showing my American bias here. Most of us like nothing more than a government that can’t get anything done except what people with diametrically opposing views can agree on, even if we do complain about ‘gridlock.’)
8 Comments
Lee Myung-bak wants the constitution changed but he can’t say so and will make comments to the contrary. Nothing could be better for Lee right now to change presidential terms two successive four year terms. He was the least critical when Roh brought it up in I think it was January.
Go for 2-Term Presidency
Appeared in Korea Times on 01-31-2007
Dear Prof. Sean Hayes: An issue that has suddenly been proposed by President Roh Moohyun is the amendment of the Constitution to give the future president a four-year one-time renewable term and also to align the presidential election with the National Assembly elections. Currently, the president has a five-year non-renewable term and the presidential election is not held on the same date as the National Assembly elections, since Assemblypersons have four-year terms. Is Roh’s proposal worth trying? Proud Korean citizen
Dear Proud: The system of two four-year renewable terms was proposed to lessen the cost of elections by aligning the dates of elections; to keep government policy consistent by allowing presidents the possibility of an eight-year term; to help eliminate the present system’s lameduck year; and for a variety of other reasons.
Whether it is a good idea or not may depend on your political leanings and ideology , since the system may bring forth more liberal and younger candidates.
First, aligning the presidential election with the National Assembly Election will lead to a larger number of voters voting in the National Assembly elections.
The presidential elections have larger voter turnouts than the National Assembly elections and hence aligning the election days will lead to a higher voter turnout. Traditionally, the well established in society vote in every election, while the younger and less established tend not to vote as often and often tend only to vote in the “major” elections.
The well established tend to be more conservative, while the less established tend to be more liberal.
Hence, the system may lead to more liberal voters voting in National Assembly elections, thus benefiting more liberal candidates.
Secondly, having the possibility of an eight-year term may lead voters and parties to consider older candidates not acceptable, since they may be considered too old to successfully complete their last term. I think under the proposed system the age and health of former President Kim Dae Jung, for instance, may have become a more significant issue.
I haven’t heard this issue mentioned in the newspapers. Therefore, I think neither party has considered these issues, but I bet many opposing party members, if they consider this issue, may be opposed to the seemingly logical change.
American Attorney Sean Hayes is a professor at Kookmin University School of Law and a researcher for the Constitutional Court. Direct questions to SeanHayes@ahnse.com.
01-31-2007 17:13
http://www.ahnse.blogspot.com
‘. . . whoever loses the [GNP] primary will be tempted to leave the party and try his or her hand in the general election.’
As far as I know, this is impossible as there exists the ‘Lee In-je Law’ to prevent a repeat of the 1997 debacle. According to this law, a candidate cannot bolt and run independently after losing in the party primary.
FD,
I was not aware of any law like that on the books and would love to hear more about it.
Mr Jackson,
I’ve done a little sleuthing. Here is a little information in Korean about the so-called ‘이인제 방지법’ (’Rhee Inje Prevention Law’).
http://www.ijworld.or.kr/netiz.....l?idx=8922
The salient points are : ‘우선 2005년 선거법이 개정돼 당내 경선에 참여했던 사람이 당을 뛰쳐나와 대선에 참여하는 것이 불법이 됐다’ (’First, as the election law was revised in 2005, it’s become illegal for one who participates in a party primary election to then leave the party and participate in the general election.’)
And ‘결국 지금의 조건에서 제2의 이인제가 되려면 둘 중 어느 한 명이 처음부터 한나라당 경선에 참여하지 않고 바로 대선 출마를 선언해야 한다.’
In the end, to become a second Rhee Inje under current conditions, one of the two [candidates] would have to not participate in the GNP primary from the start, but directly announce his participation in the general election.
I hope this helps.
I’m sorry that I forgot indicate that the following is a translation, not my own words.
‘In the end, to become a second Rhee Inje under current conditions, one of the two [candidates] would have to not participate in the GNP primary from the start, but directly announce his participation in the general election.’
‘이인제 방지법’ is a law of ‘이인제’를’ 방지함’, which prohibits people from acting like 이인제.
Below is the law you mentioned,
공직선거법 2007.1 19 법률 제 8244 호
제6장의2 정당의 후보자 추천을 위한 당내경선
제57조의2 (당내경선의 실시) ①정당은 공직선거후보자를 추천하기 위하여 경선(이하 “당내경선”이라 한다)을 실시할 수 있다.
②정당이 당내경선[당내경선의 후보자로 등재된 자(이하 "경선후보자"라 한다)를 대상으로 정당의 당헌·당규 또는 경선후보자간의 서면합의에 따라 실시한 당내경선을 대체하는 여론조사를 포함한다]을 실시하는 경우 경선후보자로서 당해 정당의 후보자로 선출되지 아니한 자는 당해 선거의 같은 선거구에서는 후보자로 등록될 수 없다. 다만, 후보자로 선출된 자가 사퇴·사망·피선거권 상실 또는 당적의 이탈·변경 등으로 그 자격을 상실한 때에는 그러하지 아니하다.
③「정당법」 제22조(발기인 및 당원의 자격)의 규정에 따라 당원이 될 수 없는 자는 당내경선의 선거인이 될 수 없다.
[본조신설 2005.8.4]
Thanks for the information.
I have made a correction in the post to read: “whomever is projected to lose the primary will be tempted to leave the party and try his or her hand in the general election.”