The Paradox of Forgiveness: When Mercy Meets Politics in Korea

By Park Jin-wan

On August 15, Korea’s Independence Day, President Yoon Suk Yeol exercised a power as old as the presidency itself: presidential pardon. With the stroke of a pen, he absolved or restored the rights of 1,219 people. But once the dust settled, people were left grappling with a pressing question: Is this act of clemency a cure for national wounds or merely a temporary solution to deeper systemic problems?

Among those pardoned and had their rights restored were names well known to all Korean news junkies: former governor of South Gyeongsang province, Kim Kyung-soo, convicted of public opinion fraud, former National Intelligence Service chief Won Sei-hoon and Cho Yoon-Sun, the culture minister infamous for helping create a “blacklist” of anti-social artists, writers and celebrities -administration. If some consider these pardons as a step towards national reconciliation, others see them as a dangerous precedent which places political figures above the law.

Even the ruling party found itself divided. Han Dong-hoon, head of the ruling People’s Power Party, publicly questioned the decision to restore Kim’s rights, citing the seriousness of his offenses. Meanwhile, the opposition Democratic Party has focused on another aspect: criticizing the release of individuals implicated in the Park administration’s government manipulation scandal. This bipartisan review highlights the complexity of the issue, demonstrating that concerns about the pardon process transcend simple party politics.

This is not the first time that presidential pardons have raised eyebrows in Korea. The Moon administration’s decision to release former President Park Geun-hye after just four years of her 24-year sentence has left many Koreans perplexed, with more than a majority of Koreans disapproving of the move, according to a KBS poll. President Yoon’s pardon of former President Lee Myung-bak in 2023 has only intensified skepticism about the use of this constitutional power.

On paper, presidential pardon is a noble concept – a constitutional guarantee against possible miscarriages of justice. In practice, however, it has become a political hot potato, often seen as a tool for securing backroom deals and political favors. The central problem lies in the lack of transparency. Pardons are decided behind doors, with little public participation or explanation. This opacity ultimately aroused distrust and raised the fundamental question of whether presidents should have the power to overturn court decisions made on legal grounds.

It should be noted that not all pardons are controversial. In the recent 8:15 a.m. special pardon, only 55 of the 1,219 recipients were former high-ranking civil servants and politicians. The vast majority were in less controversial categories, including small business owners, people with serious illnesses, people wrongly convicted, people under 34 and transportation workers. These pardons often respond to real societal needs and attract little criticism. The problem lies in high-profile political pardons, which appear to prioritize “national unity” over justice. These decisions, made without clear criteria or public consultation, risk eroding trust in the entire system.

To restore public trust, Seoul must reinvent its pardon process, starting with the Justice Ministry. Currently, the review board within the ministry remains small and insular. Expanding this committee to include experts from across the political spectrum would ensure a more balanced assessment of clemency requests, providing valuable information and helping to alleviate concerns about political bias.

Additionally, establishing a public hearing period before finalizing high-profile pardons would give citizens a voice in the process. While this step may not directly influence decisions, it would at least provide the public with an opportunity to be heard, thereby fostering a sense of participation in these consequential decisions. Another practical measure would be to limit the frequency of pardons during the same presidential term. This measure could significantly reduce the perception of politically motivated timing, which often casts a shadow over the legitimacy of pardons.

However, even if these systemic changes prove difficult to implement, one crucial reform stands out: requiring detailed justifications for clemency decisions, particularly in controversial cases. This measure, which could be implemented relatively easily, would promote the transparency and accountability that are sorely lacking in the current system. By clearly explaining the reasons behind each pardon, the administration could go a long way toward restoring public confidence in this powerful presidential authority.

These changes would not strip presidents of their pardon power, but would create a more accountable and transparent system. By involving a broader range of stakeholders and subjecting the process to greater scrutiny, Korea can work toward a pardon system that balances mercy and justice and upholds the principles of democratic governance.

The controversy over presidential pardons is more than just a legal debate: it is a litmus test for the health of Korean democracy. With public trust in institutions already fragile (a recent Gallup poll showed that 58% of young Koreans do not support any political party), reforming this system is crucial to regaining public trust in the governance system by improving transparency.

The power to forgive is a heavy responsibility. The path forward requires a delicate balance between preserving executive discretion and ensuring that pardons serve their purpose of promoting the common good.

Park Jin-wan is a Schwarzman Fellow at Tsinghua University, China, and a non-resident James A. Kelly Korea Fellow at the Pacific Forum.