[Editorial] Without public support, Roh should not push for constitutional revision

President Roh Moo-hyun is busy trying to convince the legislative branch and the whole country about the need to amend the constitution so that presidents serve four-year terms and may be elected successively. His recent meetings with the most important members of the branches of government, ruling party officials, and the media have all been part of this effort. Instead of persuading them, however, it is becoming harder to even discuss the idea. The opposition Grand National Party (GNP) holds the keys to constitutional revision because it holds enough seats to block the bill from national referendum, and its official policy is to refuse to even talk about it. The Democratic Liberal Party (LDP) is calling for the discussion to stop. The Democratic Party (DP), which initially supported the plan, though with certain conditions, is not so interested anymore. You see how serious the situation is by the fact that when the president invited political party members over for lunch, the nation’s four opposition parties refused to show up and the gathering became a meeting between the Blue House and the ruling party. The mutual distrust is so bad that the opposition is probably not going to change on this, even if Roh renounces his membership in the ruling party or continues with his efforts of persuasion. Public opinion supports four-year successive terms, but it is very much against the idea of amending the constitution before the end of the year. What that can be interpreted to mean is that the country thinks the next presidential election should be held under the constitution in its current form.

Still, the president tells a press event that it is his "obligation" to keep talking about the issue and that he is going to "continue to exercise my constitutional authority whether it gets passed or not." It would appear that he is thoroughly resolved that the country's future requires a system of four-year successive presidential terms. We do agree that the "1987 system" from which the five-year single term format comes has inherent problems, and that having presidential and parliamentary elections at the same time would be very helpful in reducing the social and political cost of Korean elections.

However, amending the constitution, which is the highest code of the land, is something that requires a consensus among the people. It should not be the result of politicians’ personal beliefs. It is therefore not something the president should push for so stubbornly, when there is no agreement among members of the legislature and the idea is not supported by the Korean public. During his political career, President Roh demonstrated his beliefs and principles by refusing to participate in the "Three Party Merger" in February 1990 and by stubbornly insisting on running for the National Assembly from his home base in Busan rather than from Seoul (he lost each time), but a constitutional amendment is not something that should be pursued with the same mindset.

Furthermore, it is only going to increase the negative side effects of his campaign for the changes in the presidential term system if Roh insists on proposing a bill to amend the constitution even though he knows it would be rejected. "I do not necessarily think a vote against [the amendment bill] would be a vote of no confidence," he said, and pledged he would not step down even if it were rejected, but that does not mean it is okay for him to push that kind of bill through regardless of whether or not it is going to pass. He needs to consider what the effects of a ’no’ vote would be. The confrontation between the ruling and opposition parties would throw the whole political landscape into a whirlwind over the amendment issue, and issues relating to the public welfare - such as real estate policy - would be left behind.

All said, we believe it would be best for the president to stop pushing for a revision to the constitution right now. Politics is reality. However good your ideas may be and however right you are, a prudent and courageous leader knows when to give up on something if his ideas are not supported by public opinion. It is meaningful enough that he has brought up the problems in the current presidential term system and talked about the need for change. At least it has been confirmed that the country thinks it does need to happen. But frustrating as it might be, it would be best to leave the issue for after the next presidential election and for Roh to dedicate himself to running the government. He needs to listen to the will of the people and follow common sense. Instead of trying new things in his last year in office, it is our hope that he would instead work to recover from his mistakes.

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