[Editorial] In presidential term question, parties need to think about nat'l interest

President Roh Moo-hyun has proposed that the constitution be amended to, among other things, change the term for president so that instead of a five-year, one-term limit they be elected for four years and be allowed to serve successive terms. He has also proposed that presidential terms be made to correspond to those for members of the National Assembly. It is the same idea that has been frequently been talked about in political circles. There is, at this point, general agreement between the ruling and opposition camps about the negative aspects of having presidents serve only one five-year term. The problems have become apparent over the past 20 years, thought the single term limit was put in place to prevent long-term rule by dictators after initial democratization in 1987.

There have been sporadic suggestions about this for years, but conflicting interests in political circles about the timing has prevented the debate from actually going anywhere. What is clear at this point is that with the end of the current presidential term coming in February 2008 and the end of National Assembly terms ending in April of the same year, what we have is an opportunity to gain considerable consensus about the timing. Since neither the executive or legislative branches would have to see their terms reduced, a change could really happen this time if the ruling and opposition parties just work it out. If the amendment process is done with by April or even May at the latest, the presidential election scheduled for the end of the year can go on without any snag.

However, it looks like the wall of distrust over the when and why of how the president brought up the subject is not going to be overcome very easily. The main opposition Grand National Party (GNP), which holds the key to any vote in the Assembly, is particularly worried about upsetting the landscape when things are currently working to that party's advantage in terms of the presidential campaign ahead. The Democratic Liberal Party (DLP) agrees on the need for an amendment, but it worries that any discussion about the subject would push important national issues to the back burner. The constitution is the basic code for the state and community, so changing an existing one or making a new one absolutely requires the agreement of the entire populace. This is why it requires two-thirds approval in the Assembly. If the president brought up the subject out of true concern for the future of the country, he needs to make a serious effort to ease the GNP of its concerns.

The GNP, for its part, should not continue to avoid this discussion. It is not a responsible move for a party best positioned to occupy the next presidency to refuse to even talk about something that is so critical to the country's future, merely because of the possibility it might hurt its chances at election time. At any rate, once an amendment bill gets proposed at the Assembly it will have to be debated. All sides need to leave their parties' interests behind and think about the national interest by examining the issue in a serious and cool-headed manner. That would be a more mature approach to politics.

Please direct questions or comments to [[e-mail]]