Based on various interviews and stories, this is what generally happens when candidates for high-ranking government positions are notified of their selection. The bliss brought by the offer of a lifetime is short-lived, and thoughts of the dreadful confirmation hearings soon enter their minds.

Having seen all the grilling and televised dissection of nominees’ lives, they face sleepless nights, agonizing over whether to accept the nomination.

Objections from spouses and children, who are also fair game in confirmation hearings, are said to be a major factor. Quite a few candidates turn down the offer simply because of the hearings and their ugly consequences.

Confirmation hearings these days do not simply check nominees’ competence. They have become a national ritual to check whether the person has led an impeccable life in all respects ― and I do mean all. It is like a political version of a medical CT scan. No stone is left unturned.

Records of military service, tax payments, personal relationships, bank accounts, health insurance, academic degrees, and financial transactions, are just a few of the items scrutinized at a parliamentary hearing.

Unconfirmed facts and hearsay from hidden sources are then added to the mix, at which point the distinction between truth and rumor is blurred and political mudslinging starts.

This is also when the three most common themes appear: the opposition’s threat to pronounce the candidate “dead on arrival,” the ruling camp’s accusation that the opposition is “the pot calling the kettle black,” and the voice of reason stressing that filling a cabinet position is not an occasion to find someone “as clean as a priest.”

Don’t forget the media, a critical player in the whole process.

During this white-knuckle ride of several weeks, nominees sometimes quit, and even if they emerge from the process successfully, they do so with political scars and their leadership weakened, arriving in office exhausted. Knowing this, those who receive the call of a lifetime often decline the offer, so they say.

Confirmation hearings were introduced in 2000 and the coverage has steadily expanded through two amendments of the enabling statute, so that now almost all key positions are subject to one.

Not all hearings are the same, though. Some positions require confirmation hearings followed by a vote of approval by the National Assembly, while others do not require parliamentary approval. In the latter category, the president may consider the views of the Assembly detailed in the final report, but does not have to act accordingly.

For instance, the prime minister’s appointment requires the approval of the National Assembly but the appointment of Cabinet ministers does not. The president is not mandated to follow the contents of the report, but its political weight has been immense.

The process represents a positive development for Korean society. There is a consensus that only those with the highest ethical standards can be chosen for key positions in government. Those harboring a desire to assume higher posts have become aware of the close societal monitoring and are now more cautious in managing their careers, while “condoned irregularities” have gradually disappeared.

On the other hand, confirmation hearings have become a political point-scoring session. Many times, policy issues become blurred and personal attacks take over. If the process has scared off many able candidates, the burden falls into the lap of the organization in question and ultimately the people.

As the possibility of a cabinet reshuffle is now being mentioned, there may be some people somewhere sitting by the phone who will begin to agonize once the call does come. Yes, a grilling is what it is, once a confirmation hearing starts. 

By Lee Jae-min

Lee Jae-min is an associate professor of law at Seoul National University. ― Ed.