Constitutional reform debate resurfaces

A debate over a constitutional amendment is likely to expand this year as calls have been cropping up to revise the basic law.

The Constitution has often been at the center of political discourse, especially near the end of a presidential term, since South Korea last changed it in 1987.

While Cheong Wa Dae has yet to announce that it will seek to change the law anytime soon, some senior lawmakers began to float the idea that the 20-year-old law should be replaced with a new one that reflects the postdemocratization political landscape.

“We could not reform politics unless we address the power structure. And the only way to change the power structure is to revise the Constitution. Through this, we should make up for the shortcomings and flaws that the current Constitution has,” said National Assembly Speaker Rep. Chung Ui-hwa last Wednesday.

Historically, the idea of revising the Constitution to change the single five-year presidency term has been broached by opposition figures seeking to seize the next administration. Former President Kim Dae-jung, while head of the Democratic Peace Party, suggested amending the law to introduce a system similar to a run-off vote. Another political heavyweight Kim Jong-pil, the former chairman of the United Liberal Democrats, pushed for a presidential system to be amended to a cabinet system. The “DJP (DJ+JP) union” between then-President Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-pil from the 1997 election was also based on the premise of revising the Constitution. Each time, however, the debate was toppled by radically changing political interests.

The same occurred when then-President Roh Moo-hyun proposed the “one-point revision” during his tenure of 2003-2008. He proposed to allow presidents to seek reelection, while limiting theirs terms to four years, mirroring the U.S.’ presidential terms. However, he was turned down by the opposition Grand National Party, the predecessor to the Saenuri Party.

The debate was rekindled by the Lee Myung-bak administration, which also called for changes on other items such as inter-Korean relations and climate change.

But his efforts fizzled and they faced backlash from opposition lawmakers who criticized the move as a political gimmick to prevent a lame duck presidency and consolidate his post-presidency power. To rule out any such political calculations, it was perceived to be most appropriate to start the talks at the beginning of an administration.

Rival parties had likewise pledged to change the Constitution during the 2012 presidential election, and the parties had even agreed to set up a parliamentary body to discuss the revision, the first of its kind at the National Assembly. The pledge has yet to materialize, as politicians weigh the pros and cons.

President Park Geun-hye, after having pledged on the campaign trail to pursue a constitutional amendment, dismissed the idea of constitutional reform and even rebuked ruling Saenuri party leader Rep. Kim Moo-sung for suggesting the idea in 2014. Since then, the debate has been phased out.

But observers forecast that 2016 will play out differently for those seeking a revision. They highlighted that the move would gain momentum, signaled by how close aides to President Park began to speak out about the need for change and outlined specified alternatives to the current single five-term presidency recently.

“(The presidents) found it extremely hard to stay consistent in their policy during their single five-term presidency,” said Rep. Choi Kyung-hwan in November when he served as deputy prime minister. Choi’s remark was seen as an endorsement for two-term four-year presidential limits.

Rep. Hong Moon-jong, a vocal pro-Park member of the Saenuri Party, said in November that the nation should seek to change the current presidential structure into a semipresidential system, a power-sharing structure where a president manages foreign affairs and a prime minister oversees internal issues at home.

Notching up the level of contention, Hong said it was “feasible” that the president and the ruling party would seek to place a politician close to President Park as the new prime minister and United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon as the next president when his term ends in December 2016.

Cheong Wa Dae and the Saenuri Party’s mainstream lawmakers dismissed the plan as an individual opinion that came out of nowhere. The main opposition The Minjoo Party of Korea denounced it, saying it revealed their “ulterior motive.”

“I don’t think that we can change the Constitution before the 2016 general elections. If the Saenuri Party wants to amend the Constitution, it should propose the plan as part of its election pledges. Given this, I cannot help but question the intention of Hong’s remarks,” The Minjoo Party chairman Rep. Moon Jae-in said at the time.

The Minjoo Party suspects that the scheme is being devised to sustain President Park’s political dominance even after her term. The party argues that Hong’s version of a semipresidential system might create a political landscape in favor of the ruling conservative party.

Demographically speaking, a system where the prime minister is picked through an election who would then form the Cabinet under semipresidential rule is more likely to land a victory to the conservative party, because voters residing in the conservative southeastern constituencies outnumber those living in the opposition stronghold in the southwest.

Analysts have said that the 2016 April election would determine the fate of the amendment talks. They noted that the presidential office and the ruling party would seek to change the law if they secured more than 200 seats, a mark required for the ruling party to push through the move despite the opposition of rival parties. It would only be a matter of time before Park toys with the idea as well, although she remains hesitant as a full-fledged debate on the Constitution would most likely dwarf all other pending policies and agenda items.

By law, a constitutional amendment requires proposal from a president or half of lawmakers in the 300-strong National Assembly. Then, the motion needs to be approved by more than two-thirds of lawmakers. Lastly, the people must cast a vote on the amendment in a special referendum.

“The only impediment to the amendment is President Park’s opposition. It means that the amendment plan will become viable when Park agrees to the constitutional change. I believe that the president would OK the plan after the elections,” Lee Cheol-hee, director of the Dumun Political Strategy Institute, wrote in a media column.

The Constitution has been revised nine times since it was first promulgated in 1948. The first revision came in 1952. The revisions have often taken place when authoritarian leaders sought to extend their tenure, or the people wanted to overthrow a despotic president.

By Yeo Jun-suk (jasonyeo@heraldcorp.com)