Constitutional amendment debate

The ruling Grand National Party opened Tuesday a three-day general meeting of National Assembly members on constitutional amendment. On the first day, 120 of 171 party legislators attended the meeting and held a heated debate. Both the pro-Lee Myung-bak faction, which favors constitutional reform, and the pro-Park Geun-hye faction, which doubts the intention of the discussion, attended the meeting. It is natural for the ruling party to have in-depth internal discussion on the issue and create a party consensus. The Constitution can be amended only if there are both needs and possibilities. The ruling party has a long way to go, however, because it must create a consensus internally and then persuade the opposition.

First of all, how many Koreans agree on the need for constitutional amendment? President Lee stressed a future-oriented constitutional reform that fits the 21st century, citing the power structure, gender equality, climate change and inter-Korean relations as examples. Special Affairs Minister Lee Jae-oh, who calls himself a constitutional amendment "evangelist," said, "Constitutional amendment is to make Korea a leading country in the world that guarantees a transparent and fair society." They sound plausible at a glance but it is hard to understand why Korea cannot become a future-oriented and leading country without constitutional amendment.

Starting constitutional amendment at a time when the president has less than two years left also lowers the possibility. President Lee first raised the need for amendment in 2009 but spent critical time on revising the plan on Sejong City. Reforming the Constitution is not that simple. People and factions have different opinions even on the power structure, which is one of the most important issues in the amendment. If all the Constitution is to be amended to keep up with the times as the president said, this will overshadow other issues like a black hole. Are Koreans in that dire of a situation that other important affairs must be put aside to handle the amendment? This is neither a good time to discuss the matter in detail nor persuade the people with plenty of time.

It is practically impossible to reform the Constitution given the dynamics or responses of the parties. It is not easy to overcome party barriers as long as the pro-Park faction, which suspects the discussion itself is political, opposes, not to mention approval of two-thirds of the National Assembly for the passage of the bill. If amendment is unlikely after sufficient discussion at the general meeting, dropping the idea for the sake of the people is the best solution. Hopefully, politicians can come to a clean conclusion after the three-day meeting.