[Insight & Opinion] The Reality of Impeachment Politics and Representative State Institutions

Impeachment Motions Dismissed in Succession...
Controversy Over Abuse of Impeachment Power
Criticism Over Its Use as a Political Pressure Tool
Need for a Mechanism to Control the Power of the National Assembly

On the 13th, the impeachment motions against the head of the Board of Audit and Inspection and three prosecutors were all dismissed by the Constitutional Court. Including the highly sensitive impeachment of President Yoon Seok-yeol, five impeachment cases are still pending before the Constitutional Court. Over the past two years and seven months, 29 impeachment motions have been proposed, and all those reviewed by the Constitutional Court have been dismissed, which can be considered an abuse of the impeachment right. Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the opposition party who led the impeachment motions, tried to downplay the issue by saying, “Even if we are criticized for exercising the given authority excessively, it was done within the framework of the Constitution.”

In a press release after the impeachment trial on the 13th, the Constitutional Court stated that there was no abuse of the impeachment right. To avoid any misinterpretation, let us quote it exactly: “During the National Assembly’s resolution process of the impeachment motion, the necessary legal procedures were observed, and the accused’s constitutional or legal violations were proven to a certain extent. The main purpose of this impeachment motion should be seen as holding legal responsibility for such violations and preventing recurrence of similar violations to protect the Constitution. Even if political purposes or motives are incidentally involved, it cannot be concluded that the impeachment right was abused on that basis.”

The explanation that there was no abuse of the impeachment right was emphasized at both the beginning and the end of the decision’s reasoning. It is puzzling that the Constitutional Court, which judges the impeachment, added that there was no abuse of the impeachment right. Even if the grounds for impeachment were not accepted, the claim that it is not abuse due to its preventive effect reminded me of President Yoon’s absurd “enlightenment order” argument. President Yoon argued that the emergency martial law was a warning to the opposition party and a public appeal disguised as martial law. The president’s supporters developed this into the “enlightenment order.” The president’s warning-based emergency martial law theory and the Constitutional Court’s preventive impeachment theory are absurdly parallel theories.

Impeachment is a system guaranteed by the Constitution as a representative democracy institution. It is a device to prevent abuse of power or constitutional violations by high-ranking officials. The impeachment system, derived from the U.S. presidential system, also functions as a control mechanism of the legislature over the executive branch. However, it is a last resort beyond the routine functions of representative democracy. Therefore, it is often seen not as a practical system but as a potential pressure tool. In everyday practice, representative democracy operates through the rule of law and political accountability.

Thus, in countries where representative democracy is well established, actual impeachment cases are rare. They are more commonly seen in countries like Peru in South America, where coups occur frequently. The phenomenon of impeachment politics, which has become routine in recent Korean politics, will be a new case globally. I believe that the Democratic Party’s strategy to turn judicial risk crises into pressure on the government collided with President Yoon’s unilateralism, leading to the normalization of impeachment. The Democratic Party unprecedentedly impeached a series of prosecutors related to the Daejang-dong investigation and had already called for President Yoon Seok-yeol’s resignation even before the emergency martial law. Of course, the impeachment motion against President Yoon was a self-inflicted blunder.

Political responsibility should be held for the National Assembly and the Democratic Party’s excessive impeachment strategy. Rep. Choo Mi-ae of the Democratic Party argues that since the National Assembly, as the impeachment initiator, lacks the authority to investigate evidence, dismissals tend to occur, and thus proposes supplementing the investigation authority to the National Assembly’s impeachment right. However, it is a known fact that despite the low expectation of impeachment approval, the motion was pushed forward aiming at at least suspending the official’s duties. Korean politics has lost not only political responsibility but also decency. There is even criticism that the National Assembly has become like a refuge for suspects. What is needed is not supplementing investigation authority but a new control mechanism over the National Assembly’s power.

From the president to the National Assembly and the Constitutional Court, the true faces of the highest institutions of Korea’s representative government these days are shameful.

Kim Man-heum, Former Director of the National Assembly Research Service