Since its inception in 1948, the Korean Constitution has been revised nine times, most recently in 1987, when the wave of democratization was at its height.

The basic law does not necessarily need to be revised simply because it is a little old, but there has been increasingly frequent talk of amending the Constitution in recent years.

There is a certain logic to the calls for a constitutional revision. Most of all, the 1987 amendment was largely the result of the triumph of the pro-democracy movement that ended decades of military dictatorship.

Hence, it was designed to allow for the election of the chief executive by a popular, direct vote, ensure a peaceful change of government, and prevent long-term extension of rule.

So the current Constitution, which was built on a predominantly presidential system of government plus some elements of the parliamentary system, laid down a presidency limited to a single five-year term.

Advocates of constitutional amendments ― who in recent polls account for 90 percent of lawmakers and more than 70 percent of the public ― argue that the power structure set out in the 1987 version is outdated.

There is no question about this. Now no one sees the slightest chance of a president seeking to extend his or her rule by unconstitutional means.

The nation has definitely outgrown a system whose primary concern was to prevent extended dictatorial rule and end military intervention in politics, which started with Syngman Rhee and continued with Park Chung-hee, Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo.

Because of the anachronistic power structure, much of the talk of a constitutional amendment is directed at what the new power structure should be.

Commonly mentioned proposals include allowing the president two successive four-year terms ― this seems the most popular; creating a vice president post as in the U.S.; and instituting a Japanese-style parliamentary system of government, which is the least popular.

Some also call for a hybrid form of government, for instance a power-sharing system in which the president is devoted to foreign policy with the prime minister elected by the parliament taking charge of domestic affairs.

Then why have the ideas and discussions that flourished not borne fruit? Presidential politics is primarily to blame for the lack of progress.

Presidents do not like the issue of a constitutional revision taking central stage in politics, especially in the first and second years of their presidency, because it could overshadow their national agenda.

It is against this backdrop that President Park Geun-hye recently raised opposition to any talk of a constitutional revision, saying it would become a “black hole” swallowing all other pending national issues, including the economy.

If the president’s opposition ― or dislike ― blocks talk of a constitutional amendment in the early years of each presidency, presidential contenders’ obsession with taking power stands in the way of an amendment later on. Once presidents enter their lame duck phase, presidential hopefuls begin to make their moves and proposals for constitutional amendments cannot pick up steam.

Presidential aspirants tend to prefer to maintain the status quo because changing the power structure could affect their bid for power. In reality, it is impossible to revise the Constitution once the political community is put into election mode.

Then perhaps some time between the early and late years of each presidency could be the best period for seeking constitutional amendment, which is next year in the Park presidency.

One good thing is that no major elections are scheduled for 2015, which is the third full calendar year for Park’s office. This will help rival parties discuss constitutional revisions with little consideration of short-term political interests.

A group of 154 lawmakers, across the party lines, has already formed a parliamentary fraternity to promote a constitutional amendment. This alone has laid the political and legal foundation for rewriting the Constitution because more than half of the 300 members of the National Assembly ― that is, 151 ― are needed to propose a revision to the basic law.

These lawmakers and the majority of the general public do not support a revision just because the Constitution is dated. They want to discard the system which has outlived its mission and install a new framework that will benefit the nation.

It is ironic that Park, who was elected under the system meant to end the legacy her father ― late President Park Chung-hee ― helped build, is now advised to end it too. But it is time to return the fundamentals of the basic law to normal. 

By Chon Shi-yong 

Chon Shi-yong is the chief editorial writer of The Korea Herald. He can be reached at sychon@heraldcorp.com. ― Ed.