Home > National > Social Affairs

Are referendums direct democracy manifest or authoritarian tool? Korea's history suggests both.

Published: 11 Feb. 2026, 07:00 Updated: 11 Feb. 2026, 09:02

LEE SOO-JUNG
[email protected]

National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik, center right, speaks with members of civil societies about constitutional reform at the National Assembly in western Seoul on Jan. 28. [NEWS1]

Koreans elect presidents, governors, and lawmakers, but they rarely have the chance to directly decide on crucial state matters through a national referendum — despite a law on the books that enables such exercises in direct democracy.

Of the six referendums in Korean history, the most recent took place 39 years ago in October 1987. Koreans have since delegated their authority to decide on state matters to elected officials.

However, a new referendum might await Koreans in the upcoming June 3 local elections.

During a press conference last Thursday, National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik called for a swift amendment to the Referendum Act, either before or after the Lunar New Year's holiday in the third week of February.

An amendment to the act would be needed for a vote on constitutional reform in the June elections.

Earlier this month, Woo said a national referendum was "currently impossible" due to a recent Constitutional Court decision, even though "a swift national consensus process is needed on important national policies."

Woo aims to codify the spirit of the May 18 Democratization Movement and grant the parliament authority to approve martial law declarations by the president in a move to prevent a repeat of the martial law fiasco of Dec. 3, 2024.

The speaker’s message was echoed by ruling Democratic Party (DP) floor leader Han Byung-do, who vowed to take proper and timely action to hold a referendum and pursue constitutional reform.

Any agenda submitted to a referendum will be automatically passed if a majority of voters cast their ballots in favor of it.

While referendums appear to expand public participation in politics and make their voices more visible, they can also be a bumpy road because of legal complications and potential side effects, experts warned.

It's been done before

A ballot paper used for the sixth national referendum in 1987 [NATIONAL ELECTION COMMISSION]

Despite Korea’s adoption of representative democracy, the Referendum Act technically allows Koreans to vote directly on critical state affairs, such as constitutional revisions and defense issues.

Referendums before constitutional amendments are mandatory. However, referendums on “policies related to national defense, unification and national destiny” are at the discretion of the president.

Historically, there has never been an instance in Korea in which a referendum was used to reflect public opinion on diplomatic, security or social issues and policies. All six referendums focused on presidential authority. Most were driven by the self-serving political interests of Korea's former dictators, such as extending presidential terms and altering electoral rules.

Political scientist Yoo Sung-jin, a professor from Ewha Womans University, attributed the limited use of referendums to this rather unsavory history.

“Referendums were employed to justify constitutional reforms by authoritarian governments in the past,” Yoo said.

National referendums in Korea [YUN YOUNG, NATIONAL ELECTION COMMISSION]

The nation’s first referendum in 1962 restructured state governance from a parliamentary cabinet system to a presidential system.

The second to fourth referendums extended Park Chung Hee’s presidency to three consecutive terms, implemented indirect elections, and eventually removed presidential term limits altogether.

The fifth referendum, held by then-President Chun Doo Hwan, reintroduced term limits, capping the president to a single seven-year term.

The most recent referendum in 1987 — which occurred in the wake of democratization — restricted the presidency to a single five-year term, as it remains today.

Flawed framework

Ballot papers of the sixth national referendum are poured from a box for counting in October 1987. [JOONGANG ILBO]

While the Referendum Act enabled six referendums in the past, it is now technically inapplicable because the Constitutional Court ruled one of its clauses unconstitutional in 2014.

Article 14 stipulates that Koreans — including those living overseas — whose residence is registered with Korean localities are to be included in the voter registry for referendums.

However, the Constitutional Court said that “the voices of overseas Koreans should be reflected in national referendums as long as they hold Korean nationality,” regardless of their residence registration. The court added that the clause “deprives overseas Koreans of their voting rights granted by the Constitution.”

Although the court ordered lawmakers to amend the clause by the end of 2015, the Assembly failed to comply. In turn, the clause was automatically deleted on Jan.1, 2016.

Currently, the Act does not have governing clauses over overseas Koreans’ participation in the referendum.

In 2022, the National Election Commission (NEC) clarified that “a referendum cannot take place because compiling a voter registry is impossible under the current legal scheme.”

No changes or amendments have been made to the Referendum Act since.

Public calling

Liberal lawmakers hold placards calling for amendment of the Referendum Act during a general assembly at the National Assembly in western Seoul on April 9, 2018. [JOONGANG ILBO]

Many Koreans believe referendums should serve as a platform to represent their voices on major social issues, ranging from bilateral FTAs to the transfer of investigative authority among state agencies.

In 2011, an attorney surnamed Oh filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court, accusing the government of violating the Constitution by failing to hold a national referendum on the Korea-U.S. FTA. The complainant argued that the bilateral agreement was a de facto constitutional revision, as it affects the freedom of economic activities prescribed in the Constitution, and thus should be subject to a referendum. The Constitutional Court dismissed the case in 2013.

In 2011, the then-liberal bloc, which opposed the parliamentary ratification of the Korea-U.S. FTA, also considered holding a referendum. Then-DP leader Sohn Hak-kyu said the referendum would help Koreans “deliberate on the Korea-U.S. FTA issue.”

Another call for a referendum emerged in late April 2022, when former President Yoon Suk Yeol — an ex-prosecutor who was president-elect at the time — floated the idea to oppose the DP’s attempt to railroad a contentious bill that abolishes prosecutorial investigative authority.

Yoon’s bid was thwarted after the NEC stated that it was impossible due to legal technicalities.

Nonetheless, what followed was another petition for a referendum to dissolve the National Assembly.

On April 28, a day after the NEC’s statement, a petitioner accused lawmakers across the political aisle of reaching a consensus over the contentious bill without assessing public sentiment and urged then-President Moon Jae-in to hold a referendum for the dissolution of the parliament. The petition garnered 125,991 signatories in a month.

Referendum, not a perfect cure

Late President Park Chung Hee, right, and his wife cast their ballots at the 1972 national referendum, which introduced an indirect presidential election system. [JOONGANG ILBO]

While a referendum offers voters a chance to express their voices directly, experts warned that the mechanism does not naturally translate into a mature democracy.

Park Jung-hoon, a political science professor at Sogang University, said the inherent nature of a referendum, which offers only two options — yes or no — may not be enough to fulfill the values of direct democracy.

“Compared to Switzerland, which has practiced a federal system for a long time within a small territory, Korea has a large population with a sizable territory, which can make a national referendum more costly,” Park said. “In addition, in the name of direct democracy, it can bypass representative and party politics, which are the fundamentals of modern democracy. Eventually, leaders can exploit it to validate their authoritarian rule. Korea has such an experience when then-President Park Chung Hee put his constitutional amendment directly to the public vote without parliamentary approval, which later validated his dictatorship.”

A 2022 report by the National Assembly Research Service also noted that a referendum could become a vote of confidence, in which people vote to support their leaders rather than evaluate policies and agendas or pass an objective judgment.

Prof. Yoo also noted that in-depth public deliberation can be limited in referendums.

“While a referendum can be meaningful by allowing people with sovereign rights to make a final decision, it would be no more than a procedural formality without profound debate and review,” Yoo said.

“Alternatives that can complement direct democracy include citizens’ councils and public political forums [focusing on producing and exchanging public views]. These measures are extensively implemented among Northern European democracies.”

However, Prof. Park said a referendum can help improve the quality of Korea’s democracy under certain conditions — when the public is well-informed and institutional mechanisms prevent manipulation of public opinion.

“For example, major broadcasters should air a series of debates between a group of hundreds of public jurors and political parties,” Park said. “Nullifying referendum results in case of low voter turnout can also prevent a small number of individuals from controlling and framing public opinion."

BY LEE SOO-JUNG [[email protected]]