Mr. President, Not my king

The Imperial Korean President

"Imperial presidency imperils the presdient as well as the people."

Where did the term "daetonglyeong(대통령;大統領)" originate? Following Japan’s translation President(the head of a republic) as "大統領", Koreans adopted this term as well.

In Japan, where the term "大統領" was first used, the component "統領" originates from a military term that means "the leader who commands samurai" and it has close associations with shrines(神社). Former researcher of the National Assembly Library, So Joon-seop, argued that Koreans should refrain from using the term "daetonglyeong(대통령)". As alternatives, he suggested "ju-seok(주석;主席)" once used by the Provisional Government of Korea, as well as "chong-tong(총통:總統)" which is a term used in the Chinese-speaking world for president. However, as he acknowledged, "ju-seok" has strong connotations of communism, and "chong-tong" has a strong image of dictator, making these alternatives flawed.

Beyond merely changing the title, what happens to the presidency if Koreans adopt a parliamentary system? To conclude, even under such a system, the president would exist as a symbolic head of state. The prime minister serves as the head of the government supported by the majority in parliament, while the president, as the head of state, is elected separately.

Not a few Koreans view the presidency as a resemblance to a king from the dynastic era. Although both serve as heads of state, comparing a president to a king feels unsettling. Nevertheless, the shadow of a king that Koreans perceive in president is largely due to the presence of the Prime Minister. In a parliamentary system, the prime minister or premier is the head of the executive. In contrast, few countries following the presidential system like the United States have a prime minister whose appointment is subject to the president.

In dynastic history throughout the world, there have been prime ministers, the highest minister who supported the king. Even in American fantasy drama "Game of thrones" originally written by George R. R. Martin, the King’ Hand(the Hand of the King) has the role of prime minister. Both Joseph and Daniel from Bible(the Old Testament) held positions equivalent to a monarch in Egypt and Persia, respectively, and the Korean Bible translates this as "총리(prime minister)"

In modern constitutional monarchy, for example England and Japan, they have prime minsters. However a de facto national leader is the prime minister, not the king in either country. In addition, Germans have their President but the Chancellor of Germany is a de facto national leader, not the president.

Then how about Korea? The head of state is President constitutionally and practically. On the other side, Korean prime minister is second hand of the president just like in dynastic era.

Constitutional Court of Korea also states that "the Prime Minister is merely the 'first advisory institution' to the President, and does not possess independent authority over administration, but only holds the status of an institution that oversees the administrative departments by the President's command." In short, the existence of a prime minister acting in a role similar to that of a prime minister in dynastic era creates an optical illusion for Koreans, making the president appear like a monarch.

This optical illusion peaks in Article 71 of the Constitution, which states "When the President is vacant or unable to perform duties due to an accident, the Prime Minister and, in order as stipulated by law, the ministers shall act in authority."

Regarding critiques of the democratic legitimacy of the Prime Minister acting in the president's place, constitutional textbooks note that while the president appoints the prime minister, the appointment requires the consent of the National Assembly, which represents the people, thus granting "at least minimal" democratic legitimacy.

However, if we consider this, the Speaker of the National Assembly is primarily elected by the citizens as a member of the National Assembly and subsequently “elected” by a majority of those members, thus overwhelming the prime minister in terms of democratic legitimacy.

Yet, Korean Constitution places ministers next in line for authority of the President without the need for National Assembly consent, meaning, according to textbook logic, that they lack "even minimal democratic legitimacy" while the Speaker of the National Assembly is not even mentioned as a substitute for authority.

In the United States, which emphasizes the separation of powers, the line of presidential succession places the vice president, who is the presidential running mate, first, and then the Speaker of the House. In France, in the absence of the president, it's the President of the Senate who takes over, rather than the prime minister. It suggests a lot to Koreans.

Constitutional textbooks also highlight the concentration of power as a flaw of the presidential system. In Korea, the unfortunate fates of many former presidents underscore this observation. It is time for Koreans to reflect on the fundamental issues of the presidential system that they have taken for granted, even if it may seem quite late.