Why would a president abandon his own party? Because Roh, after barely seven months in office, is a virtual lame duck. Blamed for a painful recession at home, hounded by Washington to deploy thousands of combat troops to Iraq and unable to resolve North Korea’s pressing nuclear problem, he is groping for political relevance. A new mandate under the banner of a fresh political party may be his last best hope to salvage a presidency that won’t actually run out until 2008.
To be sure, Roh bears much of the blame for his troubles. With the new pro-Roh party occupying only 15 percent of parliamentary seats, Roh now has little legislative support, making him a true lame duck. But the root of his impotence may be hardwired into South Korea’s political system. Limited to a single five-year term, South Korean leaders enter office with an impossible “to do” list. They must set agendas, establish party unity at the fractious National Assembly, navigate policies through the bureaucracy and maintain sky-high approval ratings–all without an appreciable honeymoon, let alone the promise of a second term if they excel. Without a second shot at the Blue House, it’s virtually impossible for South Korean presidents to keep their own party members in line. Almost immediately after an election, a president’s allies start looking for the next political bandwagon. “We have to ask ourselves: how viable is the single-term presidency?” says Lee Chung Min, a political scientist at Yonsei University. “I would argue that it’s time for a change.”
Today Roh’s toughest foes are lawmakers from his own party. They no longer shield him from opposition attacks in Parliament and have halted efforts to implement his policies and initiatives. On Friday, MDP and original opposition parties joined hands and rejected the appointment of a new national audit chief in a parliamentary confirmation vote. What’s more, they’ve supported motions to summon presidential relatives and associates to answer unsubstantiated corruption charges.
These disgruntled MDP lawmakers remain loyal to former president Kim Dae Jung, Roh’s erstwhile mentor. Kim was moderate and pro-American. Roh ran a populist campaign implicitly critical of Kim’s pro-American stance–and once in office, set about eradicating Kim’s influence to the point that he, too, may now be ready to bolt the MDP.
South Korea’s political parties are ideologically indistinct. Lawmakers “are switching sides like nobody’s business,” says Lee. Continuity is lost with each presidential election, and voters can’t opt to stay the course even when an administration has served the country well. “The single-term presidency can work both ways,” says Kim Young Rai, a political scientist at Ajou University. “On the one hand the president is free from the pressures of seeking re-election, but on the other he can’t fully control his party or the bureaucracy.”
Opinions on reforming the system are divided. Proponents back one of two options: a parliamentary system based on the Japanese model or a U.S.-style presidency limited to two four-year terms. Should the current system survive Roh’s tenure, it will be because the forces for change are divided. (To amend the Constitution, two thirds of the National Assembly must approve the change and then voters must concur in a national referendum.) Those advocating a parliamentary system, led by a small party called the United Liberal Democrats, argue that power is too heavily concentrated in the Blue House. Their remedy: “a strong cabinet system” to regain balance, says lawmaker Shin Gyung Shik.
Critics of that plan believe the result will mirror Japan’s system, where family dynasties monopolize parliamentary seats for generations and party bosses wield the real power. In contrast, a strong two-term presidency “makes it clear who takes responsibility,” says Park Jin, spokesman for the majority Grand National Party. Leaders would “accumulate experience in the first term and push for real reforms in the second term,” he says, adding: “For eight years they could pursue policies coherently.”
It’s telling that only two Asian democracies, South Korea and the Philippines, employ a one-term presidency. Both are legacies of authoritarian rule crafted in reactions to former dictators. It may be dangerous to say in a country that borders the horrifically repressive North Korea, but in this case, too much democracy may not be such a good thing.
