Lee Jae-myung pushes for two-term presidency as part of a sweeping constitutional reform pledge. On Sunday, the Democratic Party candidate called for a shorter four-year term with a chance at reelection. He also proposed writing the Gwangju Uprising into the Constitution to honour South Korea’s democratic struggles. Lee made his announcements during a visit to Gwangju, commemorating the May 18 pro-democracy movement. As with other proposals, he posted his statement online, bypassing traditional media outlets.
Lee Jae-myung pushes for two-term presidency, saying it would allow voters to assess presidents mid-way. However, he dodged a direct answer on whether he would run for a second term himself. “The current Constitution bans a sitting president from seeking reelection,” Lee stated. Yet he insisted a reformed system would enhance democratic accountability. A midterm check, he argued, would balance executive power more effectively.
In his statement, Lee linked his reform proposal to the previous administration. He criticised former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s brief martial law attempt, calling it a reason for stronger safeguards. Moreover, he proposed limiting the president’s veto power, especially on bills involving corruption. Lee said a president should not block investigations into themselves or their family. The move, he added, would reduce conflicts of interest in future administrations.
Additionally, Lee proposed stripping prosecutors of their power to request arrest warrants from courts. He claims the reform would curb abuses by investigative authorities. Yet critics note Lee himself faced an attempted arrest and currently stands trial in five ongoing criminal cases. If elected, those trials would likely continue during his presidency. Despite this, Lee’s party holds 170 of 300 National Assembly seats, giving him strong legislative support.
Lee Jae-myung pushes for two-term presidency despite shifting his position during the Democratic Primary. Back in April, he downplayed the need for constitutional reform during a televised debate. At that time, he claimed it was not a priority issue. Now, his reversal has raised eyebrows across the political spectrum. Many wonder if his proposal reflects deeper personal ambitions.
