[Opinion] Constitutional Amendment Related To President`s Four Year Re-Appointment

It has been nearly 15 years since the inception of constitution in 1987.

Slogans in June that heated the street have also been forgotten with the elapsing of 15 years.

Insistence of politicians and economists who urge to revise the constitution is gaining power, again.

Summarily, they urge to change President`s term from five year single appointment into four years re-appointment.

They make a fuss about it as if emergency situation is likely to occur without revision.

Politicians have deceived people not only one or two times but money times, haven`t they?

It is wondrous if “the wolf would appear” as their insistence.

I hope that they don’t take advantage by putting Prime Minister, Vice-President or Rep. insisting Vice-President System and the bicameral system.

The British anthropologist James Fraser mentions about system in Southern India which is called `Talabetiparotiam` in his master piece `golden branch`.

“They grant absolute power to monarch for five years; however, when the term expires they cut his neck and throw it among natives. Natives try to pick up falling neck, and the one who picks it up is appointed as the next monarch for five years.”

Oh, how similar it is with our existing situation which the constitution has passed!

President waiting for `decapitation` before finished party table, rushing candidate who are there to pick up beheaded neck, and cold sight of onlookers looking at this from distance.

According to insistence of constitutional amendment for re-appointment, it is said that five years is too short to achieve something and single appointment can`t result in pin-pointing of political responsibility.

However, length of term is, after all, relative matter.

Five years can be long enough to endure incapable President

However, re-appointment is not only device to seek responsibility to President and as long as it is limited to the first re-appointment, the responsibility is also limited to the first.

Ruminating experience of constitutional history, serious danger occurred in a situation when the President confronted with re-election fully mobilized human as well as material resource.

Also, former President Kim Young-Sam`s boldness in eliminating military politicians and President Kim Dae Jung`s positive promotion towards the North might not be impossible without single appointment.

It is said that discord of President`s term and Representative`s is also a problem.

They say that major election and general election should be carried out simultaneously

so that administration and legislation can be harmonized as well as burden to carry out election every year can be reduced.

However, period of progressive major election and general election has nothing to do with matter of `minor ruling party and majority opposition`.

On the contrary, primary constitution in 1948 was designed to cut period of major election and general election exactly in the middle, in order to control authority of President.

If discord of term is problem, there is another way to extend term of representatives to five years; therefore, it is not necessary to touch term of President.

It is true that term of President (five years) and Representative (four years) is in discord, however, it is `predictable circulation` which is repeated in cycle of 20 years, therefore, political confusion is not brought about due to it.

Matter of President`s term comes under `detonator` of our constitution.

Lee Seung-man and Park Jeong-hee `died in explosion` by mishandling it.

Conclusion of half century of our constitutional history is melted in the article 70 of the constitution, `President`s term is five years and no re-appointment`.

I feel really uneasy listening to insistence of constitutional amendments by some politicians, as they are like kids playing with explosives.

Think about it, whether stable majority, 2/3 of registered members, which is needed for amendment of the constitution would be secured or not.

Our politicians even were not able to form half of members in four times general elections from 1998~ 2000 years.

Transforming parable which the U.S. politicos Jorbani Sartori mentioned in `comparative constitution engineering`, our politics is like drunken driver who is driving such an old car on non-paved road.

Let’s substitute driver for politician and car for political party and the road for the constitution.

`Political gangsters` who would be suitable for chivalrous novel are wandering around `regional feudal lords`, is our reality.

And in this situation, they are insisting that the constitution is wrong and it should be revised.

Seeing brilliant U.S. constitutionalism, it succeeded not `by constitution` but `in spite of the constitution`.

I hope Presidential candidates would listen to `road guidance` of constitutional scholars rather than clumsy constitutional amendment.