The constitutional revision issue is resurfacing as potential contenders gear up for the presidential election in November.

Senior ruling party lawmaker Lee Jae-oh added to the latest discourse on the issue last week when he announced his presidential bid. He pledged to amend the Constitution within his first six months in power to change the presidential tenure from the current single five-year term to two four-year terms and constrain presidential power.

Lee urged other potential candidates to agree to shorten the next presidency to three years to facilitate the constitutional amendment, if they accept his proposal.

Some other presidential hopefuls have expressed their stance on rewriting the basic law. Rep. Chung Mong-joon of the ruling Saenuri Party and South Gyeongsang Gov. Kim Doo-kwan, who belongs to the main opposition Democratic United Party, recently raised the need for constitutional revision to disperse power concentrated on the president.

Gyeonggi Gov. Kim Moon-soo, a Saenuri member who became the first one to announce a bid for the next presidency last month, and former DUP leader Sohn Hak-kyu do not want to see presidential authority reduced, while raising no clear objection to changing the presidential term.

Asked about her view on a constitutional amendment last year, Rep. Park Geun-hye, the ruling party’s undisputed presidential frontrunner, hinted at her preference for two four-year terms but avoided formalizing her stance, saying public sentiment was the most important factor.

The Constitution, which was first promulgated in July 1948, has been amended nine times. It was last revised in 1987.

Minimizing changes in the basic law is certainly desirable for ensuring a stable constitutional order and nine amendments in 64 years may be considered quite frequent.

Nevertheless, there seems to be the need to revise the current Constitution especially to alter the presidential term to be more suitable for political and social conditions that have changed over the last 25 years.

The constitutional debate should be activated in the lead-up to the presidential election if a revision is to be made during the next presidency that starts in February 2013.

The current Constitution was drawn up as a result of a long pro-democracy movement, which ended decades of military-backed authoritarian rule in 1987. Its limitation of the presidential tenure to a single five-year term reflects the public trauma from previous presidents’ attempts to extend their rule by oppressive means.

It is far from realistic now, however, to presume that Korea will see another dictatorial ruler emerging in the future, shaking up the constitutional order.

Instead, our attention should be paid to the problems the single five-year term has caused, in which nearly every president elected under the system leaves office in disgrace.

President Lee Myung-bak follows in the footsteps of his four predecessors in seeing his relatives and associates jailed on corruption charges. With a second presidential bid barred, a president tends to lose his grip on power early, while people around him are likely to be tempted into hurriedly securing personal interests.

Presidents have also focused on things that can be achieved in a single term, making it difficult to draw up and implement policies from a long-term perspective. This tendency can be problematic, especially in dealing with North Korea at a time when Pyongyang’s leadership itself remains volatile.

Changing the presidential term could also increase political efficiency by making it possible to hold presidential, parliamentary and local elections at the same time.

Presidential power may be dispersed further without revising the Constitution. Related laws can be amended to give more authority to the Cabinet and regional governments while guaranteeing a president effective power to implement his duties.

All presidential runners should lead the debate on constitutional change in the campaign process and, hopefully, put up its conclusion as an election pledge so that whoever is elected will be given a mandate to revise the Constitution in the early days of their presidency.

In this vein, key potential contenders ― including Rep. Park, Moon Jae-in, a DUP lawmaker-elect who served as chief secretary to late President Roh Moo-hyun, and software mogul-turned-professor Ahn Cheol-soo ― should make public their position on the matter soon.

President Lee and his predecessor Roh proposed revising the Constitution in the latter part of their presidency. Despite some relevance, the proposals met an unenthusiastic response, with the public seeing them as a partisan plot.

There is no reason for the next president to follow this path, if he or she agrees on the need to change the Constitution to fit the demand of the times.