A president who puts authority before judgment

Lee Hyun-sang

The author is a columnist at the JoongAng Ilbo.

President Lee Jae Myung has dismissed objections to allowing the heads of investigative and prosecutorial agencies to attend Cabinet meetings as “unconstitutional sophistry.” He argues that such objections amount to denying the president’s authority to direct and supervise administrative agencies. He even cited an artificial intelligence response, only to invite controversy. Yet he missed the central point. The original question was not whether their attendance was legal, but whether it was appropriate.

A familiar British legal maxim holds that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. Lord Hewart, England’s lord chief justice, articulated the principle in a 1923 ruling. The same applies to criminal investigations. It is difficult to associate impartial justice with the head of the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency meeting the president every week and diligently taking notes. Sharing the administration’s governing philosophy may be important, but must it happen at Cabinet meetings?

Lee went further, suggesting that relinquishing supervision of investigative agencies could constitute grounds for impeachment or even criminal punishment for dereliction of duty. Yet attendance at Cabinet meetings is merely one way to exercise supervisory authority. Taken to its logical extreme, his argument becomes a peculiar equation: Refraining from attendance means abandoning supervision, which warrants impeachment. Does that mean every previous president who did not invite the prosecutor general to Cabinet meetings deserved impeachment? Such reasoning arises when a question about appropriateness is answered with an assertion of presidential power.

Another example involves Supreme Court appointments. The Blue House argues that the president’s appointment authority cannot be subordinate to the chief justice’s power to recommend nominees. It has even invoked a hierarchy placing elected officials above appointed ones. But the Constitution divides these powers not to establish institutional superiority, but to safeguard judicial independence while ensuring democratic legitimacy.

Both cases reveal a president unusually determined to assert his authority. He emphasizes supervisory powers over investigative agencies and appointment powers over Supreme Court justices. Yet the issue is not whether those powers exist, but how they should be exercised.

Legality is a prerequisite for propriety, but legality alone does not guarantee propriety. By concentrating on proving that he possesses certain powers, Lee overlooks the more important question of why he should exercise them. When disagreement over the exercise of authority is treated as a challenge to authority itself, opportunities for compromise diminish. This also raises questions about whether a president who emphasizes communication through social media genuinely listens to opposing views.

Why does Lee take this approach? The answer may lie in his political development. Starting as an outsider, he advanced despite repeated resistance. As mayor of Seongnam and governor of Gyeonggi, he delivered results by asserting control over bureaucratic organizations. He once remarked that officials who resisted could be held accountable through personnel decisions. Exercising authority decisively became a proven political strategy.

But governing a nation requires a different approach. National leadership involves multiple political factions and independent constitutional institutions. It demands judgment about the broader consequences of decisions rather than immediate victories. Concessions and acceptance of criticism can sometimes produce better outcomes.

Lee frequently emphasizes pragmatism. He should therefore consider what practical benefits come from insisting on his position. Defeating objections by invoking legality and authority does not necessarily constitute good governance.

Last September, Lee told the judiciary that restraint and self-discipline were its greatest virtues. Presidential power should be no exception. Knowing when to refrain from exercising legitimate authority is itself an essential quality of national leadership.

Otherwise, the president risks appearing sensitive to his own prerogatives but reluctant to compromise. The Constitution and laws guarantee presidential powers, but genuine authority rests on public trust.

An ancient saying, jiji bultae, teaches that knowing when to stop prevents danger. Sometimes recognizing where to stop matters more than pressing ahead to the end. That applies to life as much as to power.