[Editorial] Park’s about-face

It seems obvious that President Park Geun-hye proposed amending the Constitution in the belief that it would help divert political and public attention away from the scandals that have been engulfing her presidency. Nevertheless, the reversal of her position is good for the nation.

As expected, Park’s proposal to amend the Constitution within her term of office that ends in early 2018 was met with mixed reactions -- from outright rejection by the main opposition party and enthusiastic support from some politicians in and outside the ruling party.

The Minjoo Party of Korea’s rejection and condemnation of what it called Park’s political gambit to draw attention away from the scandals is well grounded.

Park’s proposal was made Monday at her parliamentary address on the state budget plans for next year. It comes at a time when she is struggling with twin scandals involving her top Blue House aide Woo-Byung-woo and longtime associate Choi Soon-sil. Recent opinion polls showed Park’s approval ratings nose-diving to record lows of around 25 percent.

The latest scandal surrounding corruption allegations against her associate Choi is seen as more explosive than the Woo scandal as it has already spread to the nation’s largest business lobby group, conglomerates and senior administration officials.

Now allegations have arisen that Choi, whose personal relationship with Park dates back to the late 1970s, even had access to Blue House documents, including drafts of the president’s major addresses.

The opposition also suspects that Park’s hope to extend her grip on domestic politics as late into her term of office as possible has encouraged her to initiate constitutional amendment. As a matter of fact, a top Blue House aide said the president may push for an amendment based on her own proposal.  

It is ironic that Park, who had previously opposed discussing constitutional revision for fear that it would weaken her leadership, now wants to use the same issue to her advantage so as not to lose her grip on domestic politics at a time when she is on a steep downhill toward the end of her office.

At any rate, it is more than a tall order for Park to push ahead with the constitutional revision. A proposal for revising the Constitution -- which can be made either by the president or a majority of National Assembly members -- should be endorsed by two-thirds of the Assembly members. In other words, there cannot be any constitutional revision without opposition parties’ agreement. 

Moreover, the harshest critics such as Minjoo’s leader Choo Mi-ae and potential presidential candidate Moon Jae-in argue that Park not only wants to bury the scandals by using disputes over constitutional revision but is also seeking to extend her rule.

It is true Park probably has some ulterior political motives for proposing constitutional revision, but that should not keep the nation from replacing the basic law, which was last revised in 1987 as a result of a pro-democracy movement that ended decades of military dictatorships.

Given past experiences and the current political situation, it will not be easy to gain consensus on how to amend the Constitution. The issue likely to be most disputed would be the kind of power structure the nation should have.

Frequently mentioned proposals include allowing the president to have two four-year terms, adoption of a parliamentary cabinet system and a hybrid system in which the president is elected by popular vote and the prime minister by the National Assembly. The last proposal calls for the president to devote him or herself to security and foreign policy, while the prime minister takes charge of domestic affairs.

Adding to the complicated and divisive nature of the issue will be the different positions of major potential presidential candidates who are now gearing up for the election in December next year.

Constitutional revision will encounter these and other stumbling blocks, nevertheless, we need to start discussions right away.

Meanwhile, discussions and disputes over constitutional amendment should not obscure the Woo and Choi scandals. The two cases are too grave to be buried and Park is mistaken if she thinks that she can avoid catastrophe without getting to the bottom of the cases.