By Kim Ji-soo
In this age of quick-changes, quick-fixes, it’s becoming rare to spot my car. I drive a 1996 Avante, which about 15 years ago, immediately enraptured me with its fine, round, cute curves. It must have been love at first sight.
There are many memories of me and the car, which enabled me to flee spontaneously to the East Coast should I need a dose of fresh ocean air and scenery.
Doused with memories, my affection for the now beat-up old car is still strong. Admittedly, there is an element of stubborn pride of learning to love what I’ve got because I cannot get a new one.
Thus, it’s along this line of thought that I take in trying to comprehend the issue of constitutional revision in the nation.
The idea of revising the Constitution has been on the lips and minds of politicians ever since it was last rewritten on Oct. 29, 1987. Even before that the epochal year when Seoul shifted gears into democracy, there has been tinkering with the Constitution. It was as if the Constitution was a long-time object of love for Korean politicians.
Before 1987, powerful presidents or military strongmen-turned presidents tinkered with the Constitution to give themselves a candy-store variety during their presidential terms. But the 1987 constitutional revision embodied the desperate desires for democracy and adopted above all a direct presidential system and a single five-year term presidency.
Then, as Korea’s democracy began taking root, politicians began floating the idea of revising the nation’s supreme charter to allow for a possible second-term presidency and apportioning more powers concentrated in the Presidency to the National Assembly or the Prime Minister. But like a chocolate stain left on a finger, the proposal for rewriting the Constitution in 1990 came against the backdrop of then-leading opposition leader Kim Young-sam joining hands with the governing parties to become a unified government-camp presidential candidate. He was elected President two years later.
Then in October 1997, two months before the presidential election, then-leading opposition leader Kim Dae-jung joined hands with Kim Jong-pil, a leader of a conservative party and a political kingpin for the central Chungcheong provinces, agreeing to a revision to that would delegate more powers to the National Assembly. The late Kim Dae-jung was elected President, buoyed by the support of Kim Jong-pil’s Chungcheong bastion; but the revision fell through. Then in 2007, late former President Roh Moo-hyun also proposed adopting a four-year, second-term presidency, but agreed with the political parties to discuss the revision in the next Assembly.
The latest bugle call for constitutional amendment is to better reflect the country’s realities in the 21st century. It is largely spearheaded by Special Affairs Minister Lee Jae-oh, President Lee Myung-bak’s right-hand man. The call is to amend the supreme charter so as to change the governance structure, items on women, on inter-Korean relations and the judiciary.
But the response from the ruling Grand National Party as well as the main opposition Democratic Party are all tepid. The truth is that the President is in his third year and facing possible lame-duck status, and that the debate about constitutional revision may not be advantageous, so leading presidential bidders in the Grand National Party most notably Rep. Park Geun-hye are fueling suspicion about the real political motives behind the latest call for changing the Constitution. Grassroots voters, overwhelmed by worries over soaring food and housing prices, world oil prices, the devastation caused by the foot-and mouth-disease and the heavy snow seem further more disinterested.
The wariness within the political realm and the disinterest from the voters however do seem to have a common thread: do we really want it?; who will get the task of starting the debate about how to revise the Constitution?; And will it result in a change?; And will it be for the better?
Past experiences from the country’s rollercoaster political history do not present an answer to these questions at the moment. Without a real alternative, aren’t people including the politicians spearheading the amendment push likely to adhere to only what they know?