[The Ordeal of the Prime Minister]② To Reduce the Power of the Imperial President... Legal Concepts Must Be Clear

Proposal of 'Power-Sharing Prime Minister' as a Pledge Every Administration
Scrapped Within Less Than a Year of Taking Office
Need to Redefine 'Practical and Managerial' Responsible Prime Minister

The idea of a ‘decentralized power Prime Minister’ to reduce the power of the imperial presidency is a recurring theme at the beginning of every administration. A responsible Prime Minister generally means ‘maximizing the status and authority of the Prime Minister within the framework of the Constitution.’ It is summarized as a system where the President and Prime Minister share state affairs by fully utilizing the Prime Minister system. However, it has been difficult to guarantee this institutionally as it relies heavily on the President’s full delegation.

The Responsible Prime Minister First Appeared in the 1997 Presidential Election... A Framework to Check the Imperial Presidency

The constitutional history of our country is centered on the presidential system, but it has a unique political structure in which the 'Prime Minister' system, a legacy of the parliamentary cabinet system, remains. Most countries that have adopted the prime minister system follow a parliamentary cabinet system (constitutional monarchy or parliamentary republic) or a dual executive system (where the president is the head of state but the prime minister is the head of government), so it is rare to have a prime minister under a presidential system like in our country.

This stems from a unique political structure centered on the presidential system but retaining the Prime Minister, a legacy of the parliamentary cabinet system. Most countries with a Prime Minister adopt a parliamentary system (constitutional monarchy or parliamentary republic) or a semi-presidential system (where the President is the head of state and the Prime Minister is the head of government). Countries with a presidential system that also have a Prime Minister like South Korea are rare.

In the 1948 Constitution, the presidential system coexisted with a Vice President and a Prime Minister. In the ‘Sasaoip’ amendment (1954 Constitution), the Prime Minister was abolished to enable former President Rhee Syngman’s lifelong rule. In June 1960, the Constitution changed to a parliamentary system, abolishing the Vice President and reviving the Prime Minister. Later, the 1962 Constitution returned to the presidential system but retained the Prime Minister, establishing the current system where both the President and Prime Minister coexist.

The history of the need for a ‘responsible Prime Minister’ is also long. During the 1997 New Korea Party primary for the 15th presidential election, candidate Lee Hoi-chang first proposed the ‘responsible Prime Minister system and responsible cabinet system.’ Since then, the responsible Prime Minister has been recognized as an institutional method to curb the imperial presidential governance within the constitutional framework. In the 2002 presidential election, candidates Roh Moo-hyun and Lee Hoi-chang both pledged a responsible Prime Minister system, and in the 2007 election candidate Chung Dong-young, in 2012 candidates Moon Jae-in and Park Geun-hye, in 2017 Moon Jae-in, and in 2022 President Yoon Suk-yeol all promised the responsible Prime Minister system.

However, realization has been rare. Former President Park Geun-hye concretized a pledge to guarantee that the Prime Minister could recommend three times the number of candidates for State Council members. But since the Prime Minister and minister appointments often proceeded simultaneously, it was effectively nullified. Former President Moon Jae-in also promised to ‘substantially guarantee the constitutional authority of the Prime Minister.’ However, during the appointment process of former Minister Cho Kuk, former Prime Minister Lee Nak-yeon’s opposition proposal was not accepted.

President Yoon Suk-yeol was no different. He made ‘streamlining the Presidential Office’ a core national agenda and even pushed through relocating the office, but the concentration of power in Yongsan intensified. Instead of a Prime Minister overseeing state affairs, ‘Yoon’s close aides’ classified as ‘Yunhaekgwan’ were called the second-in-command. State Council appointments were dominated by prosecutors connected through personal and academic ties to the President. The ‘Manki Chinram’ (萬機親覽, personally overseeing all matters) style of governance by President Yoon began in earnest across the three major reforms (labor, pension, education) and overall livelihood policies. The presence of the Prime Minister or ministers in policy decision-making was minimal. There were murmurs saying, ‘How can the responsible Prime Minister system be upheld when the President even intervenes in party affairs?’

Constitutional Limits, Excuses for Non-fulfillment of Responsible Prime Minister Pledges

The consensus is that these repeated occurrences are based on the limitations of the current Constitution. The phrase ‘under the President’s command’ in Article 86, Clause 2 of the Constitution has been the basis for interpretations limiting the scope of the Prime Minister’s authority. The logic that ‘it cannot be done without constitutional amendment’ has become an easy excuse for not fulfilling responsible Prime Minister pledges.

However, the Prime Minister holds a higher position than ordinary ministers. This clause can be interpreted as a broad delegation rather than a specific directive, allowing for a wide range of interpretations, some argue. If the power concentrated in the Prime Minister weakens significantly under the current cabinet structure, it becomes difficult to maintain discipline in the executive branch and strengthen domestic affairs. There are 55 government committees chaired by the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister’s influence weakens, cross-ministerial state administration becomes unstable, and coordination between ministries becomes difficult.

Kim Sang-gyeom, an emeritus professor of constitutional law at Dongguk University, told this publication in a phone interview, “To substantially expand the Prime Minister’s authority, the Government Organization Act must be revised to broaden the scope of the Prime Minister’s decrees, but since the law is based on the Constitution, there are limits.” He added, “Ultimately, the core problem is the ambiguity of the concept of ‘responsible Prime Minister.’ They say ‘responsible Prime Minister,’ but it is unclear what responsibility is being taken. It is not political responsibility. It should become a legal concept.”

"The Prime Minister Reflects the Spirit of Controlling Presidential Power Abuse... Redefinition of Responsible Prime Minister Needed"

Professor Park Sang-byeong of Inha University said, “The presidential system is based on the public sentiment favoring direct elections, but that does not mean the public has entrusted the President to exercise all powers as a ‘one-man show.’” Professor Choi Chang-ryeol of Yongin University said, “For the Prime Minister to gain power, the President must have a firm political philosophy,” adding, “The presence of a Prime Minister, a parliamentary element, reflects the spirit of controlling presidential power abuse.”

There is also a pragmatic view that the current Prime Minister system reflects a complex combination of South Korea’s constitutional history, political culture, electoral system, and party realities. There is an analysis that a redefinition of the responsible Prime Minister focusing on a ‘practical and managerial Prime Minister’ is necessary. Professor Shin Yul of Myongji University’s Department of Political Science said, “In the U.S., the Vice President, who also serves as the President of the Senate, has no voting rights and limited authority. A Prime Minister function focused on cabinet management and practical affairs is also needed.”

Fundamentally, there is also a view that the current single five-year term system fails to realize ‘responsible politics,’ leading to repeated imperial presidencies. Professor Kim said, “If the President had a four-year renewable term, he would pay attention to promised power decentralization to be re-elected, but under the single term system, power concentration is inevitable,” emphasizing, “In a representative democracy, the President’s authority must be exercised within the constitutional framework entrusted by the sovereign. The responsible Prime Minister should also be viewed from that perspective.”