Superintendent elections need urgent overhaul

Few labels describe South Korea’s superintendent elections more accurately than “an insiders’ game.”

A total of 58 candidates are running this year to fill 16 provincial and metropolitan superintendent posts. Seoul alone has eight candidates in the race. Yet poll after poll shows that 60 to 70 percent of respondents either support no candidate or have no idea whom to support. Most voters are largely disconnected from the election itself.

This is hardly new. Turnout in Seoul’s superintendent by-election two years ago was just 23.5 percent, less than half the turnout recorded in the local government elections held on the same day. That should have been a warning sign for politicians and education authorities alike. Instead, the election process has once again been consumed by factional infighting and mudslinging before voting has even begun.

Because party nominations are prohibited, both conservative and progressive camps routinely produce crowded candidate fields. The consolidation process that follows often spirals into legal battles, accusations and public feuds, deepening voter fatigue and cynicism.

Across the country, campaigns have been overshadowed by allegations involving backroom political deals, plagiarism, ghostwriting and illegal gambling. For an election meant to choose the heads of public education, the atmosphere has been strikingly uneducational.

South Korea introduced the current direct election system for superintendents in 2007 after previously relying on indirect selection through local education committees and school management councils. The goal was to strengthen professionalism and political neutrality in education.

Because candidates cannot officially run under party banners, ballots do not display party affiliations or candidate numbers. Authorities even adopted a rotating ballot-order system that changes the sequence of names by district to prevent any one candidate from benefiting from top placement.

Nearly two decades later, however, the ideal of political neutrality has largely become symbolic. Superintendent elections have effectively turned into proxy political contests between conservatives and progressives. Progressive candidates routinely campaign in blue jackets associated with the Democratic Party of Korea, while conservative candidates wear the red colors linked to the People Power Party.

Campaign banners and promotional materials openly describe candidates as “democratic progressive” or “moderate conservative,” leaving little ambiguity about their political identity. Meaningful debate over educational philosophy and policy has also faded into the background.

Instead, candidates from both camps have rolled out increasingly generous populist pledges that often surpass promises made in mainstream politics. Of the 58 candidates running this year, 40 proposed cash-style benefits through vouchers, subsidies or education funds ranging from 100,000 won to as much as 50 million won.

Campaign spending has become another serious concern. In the previous superintendent elections four years ago, candidates spent an average of 1.08 billion won each, roughly 200 million won more than candidates running for provincial governor.

This year is unlikely to look much different. Without formal party support, candidates are forced to shoulder enormous campaign costs themselves. The result has been a steady stream of questionable fundraising practices, including book-publishing events used to gather political donations, along with recurring corruption scandals tied to campaign debt repayment.

Since the direct election system was introduced, more than 10 superintendents have been convicted on charges including bribery and embezzlement. It is difficult to imagine a more troubling example for students. At this point, the direct election system for superintendents appears to have run its course.

Public sentiment has grown increasingly negative. In a recent survey of 4,000 respondents conducted by the Korean Educational Development Institute, nearly half expressed negative views of the current local education autonomy system centered on direct elections. Only about 10 percent offered positive assessments.

That amounts to a failing grade for elections that determine officials often described as wielding governor-level influence over education policy. Yet calls for reform emerge every election season only to disappear once voting ends.

Most countries, including Japan, Britain and Germany, allow local government leaders to appoint education chiefs. In the United States, some states elect superintendents directly while others rely on gubernatorial appointments. Few countries maintain a fully direct election system like South Korea’s. The country can no longer afford to cling to a system that has so clearly reached its limits.

Alternatives such as a running mate system pairing governors with superintendent candidates, gubernatorial appointments, fully publicly funded elections or even party nominations deserve serious debate without further delay.

An election that energizes only political insiders while leaving most voters indifferent should not continue beyond June 3.