The hidden threat to Lee Jae Myung’s success

The author is a senior columnist at the JoongAng Ilbo. Former President Roh Tae-woo agreed after the three-party merger to pursue a constitutional revision establishing a parliamentary cabinet system with Kim Young-sam and Kim Jong-pil. When political adviser Lee Hong-koo learned of the plan through a scoop by then JoongAng Ilbo reporter Park Bo-kyoon on May 29, 1990, he objected directly to the president. According to the biography "Lee Hong-koo" by Kim Hak-joon, Lee argued that Roh's greatest political asset was the June 29 Declaration, which promised direct presidential elections. Abandoning that principle would betray the public and discard the foundation of Roh's political legitimacy. Though personally supportive of a parliamentary system, Lee believed constitutional change should not be pursued through a secret political bargain. The proposal ultimately collapsed amid strong opposition from Kim Young-sam. The episode offers a lesson as President Lee Jae Myung approaches the first anniversary of his inauguration. His approval ratings remain stable in the 60 percent range. By emphasizing pragmatic centrism and maintaining close attention to state affairs, he has secured broad public support. The ruling camp's local election strategy has effectively become, "We have Lee Jae Myung." Yet a serious political threat looms: efforts to cancel criminal prosecutions involving the president. On April 30, the Democratic Party leadership introduced the Special Counsel Act on Investigating Allegedly Fabricated Indictments by Yoon Suk Yeol's Political Prosecutors. Under the proposal, a special counsel appointed by President Lee would have authority to withdraw prosecutions. The opposition has condemned the bill as allowing a suspect to appoint the investigator responsible for his own case. Critics have also described it as an unjust privilege. Concerned about public backlash, the ruling camp has delayed consideration of the measure until after the local elections. The controversy raises questions that extend beyond politics. If a special counsel backed by the legislative majority can erase cases already under trial or even finalized by the courts, many would see it as violating basic fairness. It also challenges the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Article 101 of the Constitution states that judicial authority belongs to courts composed of judges. The special counsel system was created to ensure independent investigations free from political pressure. Using such a mechanism for the benefit of a sitting president appears contrary to its original purpose. The absence of strong internal opposition within the ruling camp is striking. Had there been an adviser willing to offer the kind of candid warning once delivered by Lee Hong-koo, the administration might have avoided becoming entangled in constitutional controversy at a politically sensitive moment. The debate has also derailed broader constitutional reform efforts. A constitutional amendment jointly proposed by six parties, excluding the People Power Party (PPP), recently failed. The proposal sought to include the Bu-Ma (Busan-Masan) Democratic Protests and the spirit of the May 18 Gwangju Democratization Movement in the Constitution's preamble while strengthening parliamentary oversight of martial law and expanding local autonomy. Few objected to those goals themselves. The problem was that the ruling party was simultaneously pursuing legislation that could nullify prosecutions involving the president. Critics argued that seeking a better Constitution while appearing unwilling to respect the current one undermined the credibility of reform efforts. The PPP's opposition therefore carried some persuasive force. A core principle of modern constitutional government is that no one should be the judge in his own case. France offers a useful example. Former President Jacques Chirac faced renewed legal proceedings after leaving office and received a suspended sentence i...