Lee revives the four-year presidency debate, but the bigger proposal is about presidential power

President Lee Jae Myung has put constitutional reform back on the political agenda, again backing a four-year presidential term with the possibility of re-election. The simple version is easy to grasp: replace South Korea’s current single five-year term with a system in which voters can either renew a president’s mandate or end it after four years.

Four years and a second verdict from voters

The current system dates from the democratic reforms of 1987 and deliberately prevents immediate re-election. That removes the incentive for a sitting president to campaign for another term from inside the office. It also creates an unavoidable lame-duck problem: every president eventually governs with a known expiry date, while voters never get a direct second chance to reward or punish the same administration.

A renewable four-year term changes those incentives. A first-term president would have to face voters again, which can strengthen accountability and allow more continuity when the public approves of the government’s direction. But changing only the term length could also strengthen an already powerful presidency.

The wider package is about power

Lee’s preferred reform package therefore goes beyond the calendar. Reuters reported that he supports a larger parliamentary role in the nomination of the prime minister and in appointments to institutions where political neutrality is important, as well as changes to the position of the Board of Audit and Inspection.

These details matter because constitutional reform in Korea often collapses into a debate about the presidential term. Moving appointment authority toward parliament, strengthening legislative checks on emergency powers and giving the prime minister a more independent political basis would change how the executive actually works, not simply how long one person can occupy the office.

The difficult part starts now

None of this is the president’s decision alone. A constitutional amendment needs a supermajority in the National Assembly and approval in a national referendum. Lee has said the details should be settled through bipartisan parliamentary agreement.

That creates a political problem as much as a legal one. The wider the reform package becomes, the more groups gain a reason to support one provision and oppose another. Linking a referendum to an election could create a deadline and turnout, but it could also turn a structural argument into a proxy vote on the sitting government.

For now, Lee has not presented a final constitutional text. What changed this week is that the presidency itself is again treating institutional reform as an active political project, framing the debate as a redistribution of power, not merely a change from five years to four.