Last Friday, the long-awaited verdict finally came out from the Constitutional Court. The moment of reckoning has arrived for Korean society. Apparently, the verdict did not come easily. It took much longer than the earlier two cases. This must reflect the rigor and agony the eight judges of the court must have gone through over the last 111 days to produce a consensus verdict. This decision is both legally significant and politically symbolic. Through the decision, I think the court sent out the following messages to the country which is becoming increasingly socially divided and politically polarized.
The first and foremost message is about the legality of the impeachment case. The court found the acts done by Yoon as unconstitutional in an unacceptable and material breach of the Korean Constitution and relevant laws as well as a betrayal of the people’s confidence in him. With the decision, the time has come for Korean society to accept it regardless of political affiliation. The division and demonstrations among the two camps, supporting and opposing impeachment before the verdict came out, had been much more visible and often violent than the previous cases. Now both camps must leave their differences behind and move on to the next stage.
The second message is about the need to preserve the integrity of the judiciary. The removal of a second Korean president in just eight years is deeply troubling and unfortunate. It represents not only the structural malaise of Korean society but also the growing malfunction of Korean political institutions. The executive and legislative branches are unable to settle their differences politically without intervention by the judicial branch. Judicialization of politics has already gone too far. Now it is about to cross another yet much more critical red line: politicization of the judiciary. The judiciary should not be allowed to be politicized. It must be kept as the arbiter of last resort, independent from political pressure. The verdict by the Constitutional Court as one of the two highest institutions of the judiciary alongside the Supreme Court must be respected by all political parties. The consensus verdict of the Constitutional Court must be an outcome of patient and persistent efforts by all eight judges to minimize any room for misusing the verdict to question the integrity of the court.
Last but not least, the verdict gave an unusually pointed reprimand to the political failure of the two main parties which control the executive and legislative branches respectively. Both parties did not talk to but past each other. Instead they took the politics to the streets away from the parliamentary gives-and-takes, not stemming but inciting political violence. The verdict reminded them that democracy is not just for majority rule but should be complemented by respect for minority views. Winning by a slim majority should not be a license to rule as if it were a 100 percent win. Self-restraint by the majority is necessary for democracy. The earlier verdicts overturning the other cases against the prime minister, the auditor general and prosecutors are a clear rebuke of the opposition party abusing its majority power in the legislative branch, while the verdict against the former president is to the ruling party in the executive branch.
The moment of reckoning is done with the verdict by the Constitutional Court. Now is the time for a reawakening of Korean society. This is critical since not much time is left before the next presidential election due in two months. But it is not easy given the deep polarization of Korean society. The future of Korea is hung in the air. Korea cannot afford to continue on the current political path of intensifying polarization. The current path must be reversed. For that, respect for minority views should go hand in hand with restraint by the majority. Institutional deficiencies must be rectified through the revision of the 1987 Constitution to reduce the risks of another unfortunate recurrence of presidential impeachment.
In electing the next president, Korean voters must make clear their preferences. The highest priority must be put to identifying the next leader best fit for exercising restraint and tolerance rather than riding on polarization and populism. The leader must also exhibit willingness and ability to present a vision and road map to rectify the institutional deficiencies. The next leader should be someone of forward-looking vision and statesman-like leadership necessary to heal the division.
Korea’s democracy stands at an inflection point: renewal or decline. Its future path will be greatly influenced by the choice Korean voters will make in two months. Prospects under the post-impeachment political climate look quite challenging. But let us not lose hope. I count on the spirit of resilience the Korean people have shown time and again in the face of crises.
Kim Won-soo is the former under secretary-general of the United Nations and the high representative for disarmament. He is now the rector of the Global Academy for Future Civilizations and chair professor of Kyung Hee University in Korea.