Will South Korea’s Corruption Scandal Finally Spark Reform?

South Koreans have grown as jaded to political corruption and cronyism as they have to North Korean missile threats. A survey in 2014 found two-thirds of respondents viewed South Korean society as corrupt. Since the country’s transition to democracy, every president has had family members involved in some kind of corruption scandal, but little has changed over the decades to enhance checks on the elite, political experts say.

But President Park Geun-hye’s ongoing Choi Soon-sil influence-peddling scandal – whose peeling layers have so far implicated conglomerates, a university dean, politicians, and the president herself – is a new breed of corruption. Revelation after revelation of Choi’s control over public affairs, paired with Park’s tragic missteps in communicating with the public, have made citizens angrier than ever.

Young people who did not live through the Gwangju Movement in the 1980s are shaken to find that the democracy they had grown up with is still veiled by the anachronistic control of the elite. Demonstrations in downtown Seoul have topped one million protesters, while Park’s public support had flatlined at 5 percent for at least three weeks, as of this writing.

With public resentment at its highest level in South Korean history, could so-called Choi-gate be the final straw that leads to meaningful reform?

There is always room to be skeptical as the scandal continues to expose how deeply the rivers of corruption run. No one in politics or business can be considered safe from influence-peddling or opportunism. The controls of cronyism are deeply embedded in both government structures and the public-private relationship culture.

“The imperial presidency of South Korean politics is based on the president’s absolute authority over personnel affairs that allows President Park to appoint anyone as her own aides even if she/he is involved in a political crime,” explains Choi Lyong, a political science professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in Seoul, adding that this allows presidents to bring in those who may help their private gains.

Further, the president’s ability to appoint a sitting parliament member to the cabinet can be used to leverage her power over the legislature by dangling the position over lawmakers as incentive.

Future legislation will surely focus on limiting the power of the president, but sincere application may depend on the next leader’s selflessness. Alas, Park herself ran in 2012 on the platform of decentralizing the power at the helm, but did little to turn that rhetoric into reality.

Constitutional changes will be difficult, but calls are clear from all parties to limit presidential authority over personnel affairs. A new constitution would also ban lawmakers from holding more than one office, Choi adds.

But even such constitutional moves may not be able to safeguard against the corruption embroiling Park’s Blue House.

“I am not sure anyone can provide specific changes that can prevent the reoccurring of [scandals of] this kind,” says Heo Uk, political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. “The root of political-business ties is deep. It will take a while before democratic institutions mature to prevent this kind of corruption reoccurring.”

The president’s “superpower status” and weak checks and balances lead to a monopoly of power at the helm, but controlling these alone may be insufficient, says Lee Sang-hak, board member of Transparency International-Korea.

“The main problem is not a government structure... but an actor who works in the structure,” he says.

Lee suggests reinforcing anti-corruption through a constitutional limiting of presidential power, enforcement of the anti-corruption law, reevaluating the principles on which the constitution is based, and educating youths on the integrity of clean practices.

In the short term, it is too early to enact constitutional change, as the opposition has its crosshairs on Park’s prosecutorial investigation, Choi notes. Such a move would also require support across the aisle – from the anti-Park faction of the ruling Saenuri Party – to garner the necessary votes, but both sides are cautious of how their moves will affect the looming December 2017 presidential election.

In the end, there may be hope to build a culture of transparency and honest civil duty, but it’s not likely to happen soon.

“It takes a long time to build a culture, which means much time is needed to change the culture,” says Heo. “A new generation of politicians may be needed to see meaningful changes.”