by Kim Pyung-woo (Attorney and Former Head of Korea Bar Association)

The latest developments being witnessed in Korean politics are rather disconcerting. Are we witnessing a revolution, a coup d’etat or the destruction of our very country? I lay awake at nights as a series of unnerving scenarios flash before my eyes. The Korean news media is behaving like a frenzied sports caster in a boxing match where the prevailing champion is temporarily stunned by a quick upper-cut while his guard is down, only to be followed by a relentless series of jabs and strikes almost to the point of being knocked out. The expressions seen on the faces of the public are varied. Fans of the underdog are belting out victory chants, while those who support the champion are biting their lips nervously as they watch the mistakes he is making. People who are fans of neither the underdog nor the champion fear something really bad might happen to the reigning boxer. Elderly spectators gather around the boxing ring and tell the panting champ that he should save his life by throwing in the towel.

But the champion tries everything to hang on until the whistle blows signaling the end of the match. Rather than lauding the champion’s indomitable will to last until the end, the sports caster ridicules him for refusing to quit even though the game has virtually ended. This is the kind of patriotic sports casting we are used to seeing in matches involving a Korean underdog competing against a foreign champion. Isn’t a coup d’etat an act of unseating an elected leader through pressure and protests simply because the public is unhappy with his or her handling of state affairs? Can we consider this as fair play if no criminal acts have been committed?

As they watch this vicious political game being played out before their eyes, newspaper columnists, university professors, the bar association and other members of the social elite have already concluded that impeachment is the only way considering the size of the influence-peddling and corruption scandal involving President Park Geun-hye's longtime confidante Choi Soon-sil. In fact, they are full of hope that the latest incident will lead to a complete overhaul of Korean politics, while nobody is willing to dissect its constitutional ramifications. Impeachment is a constitutional state of emergency where the president is forced to step down before his or her term ends. During the 1960s, Korea's first president, Syngman Rhee, was forced to step down amid widespread public protests over corruption allegations and had to take refuge in Hawaii. Today, this protest is called the April 19 Revolution, which quickly led to the May 16 military coup d'etat.

When a king is overthrown in a traditional monarchy, a bloody revolution usually ensues. Demanding that the president step down before the end of her official term could be construed as a political expression. But threatening to overthrow the presidency or warning of impeachment or imprisonment should she refuse to step down goes far beyond political expression. From a national perspective, such threats are tantamount to an insurgency. If Park caves in to such threats from the media and protesters, Korea's news media will claim that the public has succeeded in achieving a bloodless revolution, while international media will carry headlines proclaiming the victory of democracy as seen in the Middle East a few years ago.

From personal perspective, telling the president to step down is like telling her to commit suicide. Such demands need to be backed by proper logic and concrete evidence. What is the logic used by protesters demanding Park's ouster? I poured over the dailies seeking to find that answer, but nobody seemed able to provide a clear explanation. The simple logic being presented by the news media is that the so-called 'Choi Soon-sil gate' is so huge and shocking that the public is overwhelmed, requiring the president to resign.

A statement issued by the Korea Bar Association is not much different. There is no constitutional logic being applied. Is disappointing the public a justifiable reason for the president to step down? Is the Choi Soon-sil gate unprecedented for Korea? Are former presidents completely innocent of such allegations?

Kim Hyon-chol, the son of former president Kim Young-sam, was found to have pocketed a fortune after meddling in scores of business deals. Former president Kim Dae-jung's sons and aides were also found to have used their influence in exchange for money. Former president Roh Moo-hyun's older brother was also found to have meddled in state affairs for profit.  And ex-president Lee Myung-bak's older brother was also guilty of the same offense.

Yet none of the former leaders either voluntarily stepped down or faced impeachment calls. Yet why are journalists, civic groups and a majority of lawmakers -- many of whom were members of the same political group as Park for decades -- threatening to impeach the president, while completely ignoring her constitutionally-mandated five-year term, simply because she failed to stop her aides and longtime confidante from alleged activities involving corruption?

Is it because she is a single woman? The news media and ruling party are staying eerily silent while a majority of opposition lawmakers are threatening to drag the president down if she refuses to step down. Are we really experiencing a national emergency that requires us to ignore the constitution and drag down the president as soon as possible?

You can accept the simple argument that the president's fate resulted from the Choi Soon-sil gate that prompted lawmakers to seek Park's impeachment, which led to her being temporarily stripped of her presidential powers and that she will probably end up stepping down anyways as early as six months from now once the Constitutional Court supports the National Assembly motion to impeach her, only to end up in jail after being found guilty of being Choi's accomplice in the massive influence-peddling and corruption scandal. If we accept that simple argument, then are we witnessing the end of a constitutional democracy that was nurtured following the pro-democracy movements in 1987 and the start of a new form of Korean-style, media-dictated democracy, in which news reports, mass protests and meetings by elders determine the fate of our leaders? [During China's Cultural Revolution in the 1960s, the press and Red Guard ousted president Liu Shaoqi and a decade of experimental, populist communism ensued.]

If the president's official term that is guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be guaranteed, lawmakers, corporate executives, public servants and university professors will face the same fate as Park. Lawmakers could be ousted by angry members of their constituents who are disappointed by a lack of solid results, while corporate executives may be dragged out of their offices by unionists complaining about poor earnings and university professors may be stripped of their titles by students who are not impressed by their lectures. Democracy and freedom of speech are all fine, but everything becomes useless once the rule of law collapses.

I simply cannot understand the events that are unfolding before our eyes. Are we attempting to overturn our proud democratic system that dates back to 1987 and embrace a Chinese-style populist form of democracy that was proven to be a failure 50 years ago? Let's take another look at Article 70 of our Constitution.

'The term of office of the President shall be five years, and the President shall not be reelected.' And let us once again be reminded of the fact that the single, five-year presidential term has been the rampart protecting our nation's democracy and political stability over the last 29 years.

Nov. 30, 2016

(Kim Pyung-woo is an attorney in Korea and the U.S., former president of the Korean Bar Association, and a visiting scholar at UCLA since 2012)

'이게 과연 공정한 게임일까?'

국민이 4년 전에 임기 5년을 주기로 약속하고 뽑은 대통령이 정치를 잘못 했다고 이렇게 협박과 데모로 중도에 하야시키는 것은 일종의 政變(정변) 아닌가?