It began as an honorary vice mayor role in 2012 and expanded to the honorary mayor model in 2016.
Appointees use their professional knowledge to propose policies and take part in community service.
However, limits on formal powers and questions about representativeness have kept the program controversial.
“Honorary or substantive?” The state of Seoul’s honorary mayor system
Definition and origins
This is a civic participation mechanism.
Seoul’s honorary mayor posts are unpaid appointments of citizens and field experts entrusted to advise the city and strengthen two-way communication between residents and the municipal government.
Starting as an honorary vice mayor program in 2012, the initiative was elevated to an honorary mayor framework in 2016 and has since been run as a set of sectoral appointments paired with public consultation.
Active appointments began after October 2016; publicly available lists show 43 appointees across 19 sectors, including well-known figures from entertainment and sports.
The city frames these appointments as a way to add professional insight and on-the-ground perspective to policymaking.
Candidates are selected through a mix of open calls, nominations, and review panels; terms are typically one year.
Since the eighth mayoral administration, the roster of sectors has expanded to align with campaign pledges and priority projects, indicating an intent to broaden participation.
Roles and how it runs
In practice, the role is functional rather than executive.
Honorary mayors serve as conduits for citizen feedback, policy proposers, and problem-solvers for neighborhood construction or service complaints.
They may sit on advisory committees for municipal initiatives and take part in social contribution programs in neighborhoods.
Selection typically combines public recruitment and nomination, followed by vetting; appointees then serve year-long terms.
The city also uses multiple appointment areas to widen communication channels between residents, city agencies, and civil society.
For example, a youth-sector suggestion for a citywide mapping service for public spaces was later reflected in policy planning, showing that some proposals have practical impact.
Meanwhile, critics say selection criteria and role boundaries remain vague.
Therefore, improving operational transparency and accountability is a continuing challenge.
Arguments in favor
Supporters emphasize broadened participation.
The honorary mayor system opens a direct channel for citizens and professionals to engage with the city, which can strengthen democratic exchange.
When diverse experts are appointed, policy quality can improve and frontline voices are more likely to shape outcomes.
Indeed, some city measures were refined or supplemented based on honorary appointees’ proposals, offering concrete examples of the system’s value.
First, proponents point to the civic-engagement effect.
When residents and specialists see their ideas acknowledged, misunderstandings and mistrust in policy formation and execution can decrease.
Second, honorary mayors often lead or support community service projects that boost public value, from scholarship drives to neighborhood volunteering.
Second, supporters value diversity.
Appointments across youth, culture, sports, and future industry sectors can inject technical insight into policymaking that a purely bureaucratic process might miss.
That helps to include practical, operational perspectives policymakers might otherwise overlook.
Accordingly, the institution can function beyond ceremonial duties and provide meaningful advisory input.
Third, the model’s flexibility is an asset.
Because terms and sectors can be adjusted to match a mayor’s priorities, the city can quickly recruit expertise for new challenges—digital transformation, housing affordability for young people, or other emerging policy areas.
In this sense, honorary appointees help the city adapt more nimbly.
Criticisms and concerns
Critics focus on the lack of formal authority.
Because honorary mayors hold no binding decision-making power, opponents warn the system risks remaining a symbolic channel rather than producing real policy change.
Without concrete authority, recommendations can be ignored or delayed.
Representation is another sticking point.
If appointments favor well-known celebrities, the breadth of voices—especially marginalized communities—may not be reflected.
In that case, the system could echo certain social circles rather than serve as an inclusive civic forum.
Accountability and dismissal standards are also unclear.
When rules for conduct, corrective measures, or removal are vague, continuity and responsibility suffer.
Unclear sanctions for problematic statements or behavior limit the appointee’s credibility and the city’s ability to act decisively.
There is also concern that mayors might use honorary posts for image-building rather than substantive engagement.
Finally, transparency deficits reduce trust.
When the public cannot see which proposals were made, which were adopted, and what follow-up occurred, confidence erodes.
Therefore, systematic reporting on outcomes and procedures is essential to sustain public support.
Deeper analysis and public reaction
The policy’s origin lies in a desire to correct limits of traditional bureaucratic decision-making and to broaden civic input.
However, debate persists about whether the program achieves its democratic aims or reproduces form without function.
This tension reflects a gap between the ambition of participatory governance and day-to-day administration.
Online and social-media responses generally accept the idea of citizen‑expert channels.
Few dispute the need for more avenues of civic input. Nevertheless, demands for clearer operating rules and outcome transparency are loud and consistent.
Citizens want to know how appointees are chosen, what powers they hold, and how their proposals translate into action.
Policy recommendations in public debate include three reforms.
First, set transparent selection criteria to improve representativeness.
Second, create a performance-reporting system that documents how proposals were handled and what changes followed.
Third, define powers, responsibilities, and removal procedures in administrative or legal terms so expectations are clear and enforceable.
Comparisons and examples
Similar honorary or advisory models exist in other cities worldwide.
They range from purely consultative committees to bodies with formal influence over priorities or budget allocation.
The effectiveness often hinges on whether a city assigns real procedural weight to advisory input—such as prioritizing recommendations in planning cycles or allowing advisory members to participate in budget discussions.
Compared with other municipalities, Seoul’s system is praised for using sector expertise to expand policy ideas, but it is criticized for lagging on outcome disclosure and on granting enforceable authority.
Celebrity appointments in particular create tension: while public figures can raise awareness, they do not automatically ensure representative input from everyday residents. The system’s long-term success depends on attaching clear procedures and public reporting to its advisory functions.
Conclusion and recommendations
In short, Seoul’s honorary mayor system holds promise as a tool to broaden civic participation and to inject professional know-how into municipal policy.
However, structural limits—insufficient authority, gaps in representativeness, and unclear accountability—pose real obstacles.
To build trust and impact, the city should publish transparent selection procedures, diversify nomination channels to include underrepresented groups, and institute regular public reports on activities and outcomes.
It should also legally or administratively clarify the role’s powers and the standards for removal so that both appointees and the public understand expectations.
Balanced redesign—one that preserves the role’s symbolic reach while grounding it in clear duties and visible results—can help the program recover credibility.
Otherwise, the honorary mayor system risks becoming a short-lived emblem rather than a durable instrument of citizen-centered governance.
We leave the question to readers: do you think an honorary advisory post can lead to tangible change?
