[Editorial] It’s time to look into amending the constitution

Posted on : 2014-01-10 15:45 KST Modified on : 2014-01-10 15:45 KST

Amending the Constitution is far from a new topic in the political world. There has long been a pretty broad consensus among politicians that the current Constitution is in need of changes.

President Park Geun-hye has been no exception. In 2008, the first year of the Lee Myung-bak administration, she said that a “bipartisan agreement on amending the Constitution took shape during the presidential election” and that “the sooner we get started with it, the better.”

At a press conference on Nov. 6, 2012, to announce her own platform for political reform, Park pledged to “hold thorough discussions on a number of topics if elected” - including four-year presidential terms with the possibility of reelection and measures to improve citizens’ basic survival rights - and to “win public support for amendments to the Constitution that will help citizens’ lives.”

She sent a very different message at a New Year press conference on January 6. This time, the President said she opposed the idea of amending the Constitution, likening it to a “black hole.” It ended up on the long list of election campaign pledges Park has backpedaled on.

The current Constitution dates back to 1987. Proponents of its amendment say that as the situation in the country has changed substantially since then, the constitution has lived out its historic life and needs to be improved. With many problems in the power structure coming to light - the graver implications of an autocratic presidential system, extreme confrontation between the ruling and opposition political parties - many people have thrown their support behind finding a new form of government that is better suited to South Korea’s political culture. But it’s not just about reorganizing the power structure. A lot of attention has been given to the need for changes in many other areas, including broader guarantees of basic rights, economic democratization, local devolution of governmental authority in the true sense, and establishing the legal groundwork for eventual reunification with North Korea.

Amending the Constitution would not be a panacea. It would not in one move solve all the problems that are afflicting South Korean society. Even just in terms of the power structure, the different proposed forms of government - a true presidential system vs. a parliamentary cabinet system or a dual executive system - each have their own strong and weak points. No one of them offers a way out of all the different issues faced by South Korean politics. But that does not mean we gain anything by simply putting off the long-neglected issue of amendment.

Perhaps the single most important element in any discussions of amendment is the timing. The later a President gets into his or her term, the more likely it is that any momentum for amendment will dissipate and the discussions will end up more about political maneuvering. Once the next election arrives, the competition between candidates from different parties rules out the possibility of changing the rules of the game. Given all the different parts of the process that have to be factored in - researching the goals of the amendment, gathering opinions, holding parliamentary discussions, establishing a popular consensus - any discussion would have to start no later than this year.

President Park pointed to the economy and public welfare as reasons for forgoing a debate on amending the Constitution. These are lame excuses. After all, public welfare is always an important issue. It’s not a matter of prioritizing between public welfare and amending the Constitution - both can be addressed at the same time if necessary.

Another thing we have to be cognizant of is the scope of parties to the discussion. Amending the Constitution is not something politicians should be discussing for the rest of us. We need a wider range of people taking part in the process, including representatives of civil society. This is the only way to avoid too narrow and limited a range of issues from getting on the table, keeping the horizons of the debate as wide as possible. President Park’s job is to ensure a wide debate, opening the way for a consensus at the community level.

It’s problematic, then, to see Park foreclosing the possibility of even holding a political discussion. Her wing of the Saenuri Party (NFP), which continues to parrot her every word, chimed in by agreeing that the emphasis should be on addressing the economy and livelihoods rather than on amending the Constitution. It’s enough to create the impression that we should amend the Constitution just to get rid of this very kind of authoritarianism. It’s time for the Blue House and the National Assembly to take a more serious and proactive look at the amendment issue.

 

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]

button that move to original korean article (클릭시 원문으로 이동하는 버튼)

Most viewed articles