[Post-Corona, Discussing Local Autonomy] How Should the '20% Autonomy' Be Improved?<1>

[Asia Economy Reporter Park Jong-il] This year marks the 30th anniversary of the revival of the local autonomy system (jijaje) in South Korea. It has long passed adulthood. However, there is still a long way to go before achieving true local autonomy. It remains stuck at the level of “crippled autonomy” and “20% autonomy.” Yet, perspectives on local autonomy have been changing through the experience of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) crisis.

This is because it cannot be denied that local governments, working in tandem with the central government, were the top contributors to COVID-19 prevention efforts. The late former President Kim Dae-jung, who called himself “Mr. Local Autonomy,” once said, “Local autonomy is essential for democracy.”

Through this feature, we will discuss the current problems and improvement measures of South Korea’s local autonomy system, as well as reform tasks for the election system and the Local Autonomy Act. This is ultimately for the development of democracy.

[Order]

1. Crippled 20% Autonomy, How Should It Be Improved?

2. Local Autonomy, the Top Contributor to COVID-19 Prevention

3. Post-COVID, Now It’s ‘Local Government’

The 6th Local Autonomy Day ceremony held in Gyeongju in October 2018, attended by President Moon Jae-in and heads of metropolitan and basic local governments

1. Crippled 20% Autonomy, How Should It Be Improved?

◇Current Status of Local Autonomy in South Korea

Local autonomy refers to a mode of national governance where community affairs organized by administrative districts are handled autonomously by local governments (local autonomous entities, jichatae) rather than the central government. The local government in charge can be seen as a “small state.” In countries like the United States, where local autonomy is well developed, local governments exercise all three powers: legislative, executive, and judicial. This is known as a “federal system.”

However, South Korea has not yet reached that level. In most cases, local governments exercise only some of the powers delegated by the central government. Even then, the transfer of administrative duties is only about 30%, and fiscal decentralization is about 20%. This is why South Korea’s local autonomy is called “crippled autonomy” or “20% autonomy.”

In terms of history, South Korea’s local autonomy system has existed for over 70 years. The Constitution enacted in 1948 already included provisions on local autonomy, and the Local Autonomy Act was enacted in 1949. During the Korean War, local council elections were held in 1952, and neighborhood chief elections in 1955. After the April 19 Revolution, the flame of local decentralization burned even stronger. However, the May 16 military coup in 1961 led to the dissolution of all local councils. Eventually, the Park Chung-hee regime sealed the fate of local autonomy by stipulating in Article 10 of the supplementary provisions of the 1972 Yushin Constitution that “local councils shall not be formed until national reunification.”

It took 30 years for the system to be revived. The late former President Kim Dae-jung revived local autonomy in 1991 after a 13-day hunger strike. “At the end of 1989, the ruling party and three opposition parties agreed to implement local autonomy. In 1990, a law was enacted to introduce local autonomy. However, after the three parties merged and the ruling party gained an absolute majority, they tried not to uphold it” (Kim Dae-jung autobiography, 2010). But the wheels of history eventually led to the first local (basic and metropolitan) council elections in 1991 and the election of local government heads in 1995 (nationwide simultaneous local elections).

Since then, the system has developed remarkably. Especially, the late former President Roh Moo-hyun, from his days as a president-elect, continuously emphasized ▲the revolutionary promotion of local decentralization ▲balanced and regionally specialized development ▲nurturing local universities and local culture, and actually attempted strong local decentralization policies such as relocating the administrative capital.

Also, the “resident referendum system” (2004), where residents decide local issues by voting, and the “resident recall system” (2007), where residents can dismiss local council members or heads, were introduced sequentially, bringing the system to the level of advanced local decentralization countries. The “resident ordinance proposal system,” allowing residents to directly propose ordinances, is also about to be introduced.

Nevertheless, dissatisfaction remains and is even growing. This is mainly because President Moon Jae-in’s constitutional amendment proposal in 2018, which included introducing a four-year two-term system, dispersing presidential power, and strengthening local decentralization, failed due to opposition from opposition parties. Also, the full revision bill of the Local Autonomy Act, which opened the way for comprehensive reform after 32 years, was automatically discarded in the 20th National Assembly. Other laws expected to strengthen local decentralization, such as the “Central-Local Cooperation Council Act,” “Integrated Police Act,” and “Hometown Love Donation Act,” also remained dormant in the 20th National Assembly.

◇Realizing Local Decentralization? Institutional Improvement + α

In this situation, the card that can reverse the mood is ultimately constitutional amendment. Since the Democratic Party won a landslide victory in the 21st general election, if they set their minds to it, they can complete the constitutional amendment during their term.

The full revision bill of the Local Autonomy Act must also be promptly processed. The main contents of the amendment include ▲introduction of the resident ordinance proposal system ▲lowering the upper limit of the number of residents required to request audits and extending the period during which requests can be made ▲establishing grounds for and revitalizing resident autonomy committees ▲providing grounds for diversifying the composition of local government institutions ▲expanding autonomy in organizational operation ▲expanding information disclosure to guarantee residents’ right to know. These are basic systems that everyone should introduce as soon as possible to realize grassroots democracy.

Along with institutional improvements, fiscal decentralization must also be expanded. Fortunately, at the end of last year, seven related laws on fiscal decentralization (Local Tax Act, Framework Act on Local Taxes, Basic Act on Local Government Fund Management, Local Finance Act, Special Act on the Establishment of Sejong Special Self-Governing City, Value-Added Tax Act, Local Education Finance Grant Act) passed the plenary session of the National Assembly. Through this, about 8.5 trillion won annually is expected to be transferred from the central government to local governments without increasing the national tax burden. The proportion of local taxes to national taxes also increased from 22.3% in 2018 to 24.5% in 2020, a rise of about 2.2%.

The situation will improve further in the long term. At the 5th Local Autonomy Day ceremony held at the Yeosu Convention Center in Jeollanam-do in 2017, President Moon Jae-in declared, “We will improve the ratio of national tax to local tax to 7:3 and eventually to about 6:4,” and “We will also promote the enactment of the Hometown Love Donation Act to support financially struggling local governments.” He also promised, “We will constitutionalize the four major local autonomy rights: autonomous legislative power, autonomous administrative power, autonomous fiscal power, and autonomous welfare power.” We hope these efforts by the Moon Jae-in administration will soon bear fruit.

So, if all these promises are realized, will our lives change overnight? Not necessarily. Something more important remains: the change in consciousness of each citizen. Even if local decentralization is realized institutionally, without the actual participation of citizens, it cannot be considered “true” resident autonomy. It would be mere “organizational” autonomy, not much different from now. Attention overly concentrated on central politics needs to be redirected to the regions. Since local areas are much smaller than the central government, it is possible to focus the interest of local members. Participation and interest in the region are the shortcut to realizing sovereignty. Democracy will also become more vibrant as a result.

Finally, how about exercising a bit more imagination and starting a discussion on autonomous judicial power? Although somewhat off-topic, the judiciary in South Korea has already lost much of the public’s trust. As an alternative, we could consider making current county courts independent or establishing a new security judge system to form a judiciary under local governments. If that happens, it would also be possible to elect judges through resident elections. This would mark the beginning of judicial reform by ordinary citizens, not vested interests.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.