Constitutional reform needs consensus, not speed

 
Kang Won-taek
 
The author is a professor of political science and international relations at Seoul National University.
 
 
 
The news that National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik and six political parties, including the ruling Democratic Party, have agreed to pursue constitutional revision brings mixed feelings. Those who have long advocated for amending the 1987 constitutional system and moving toward a more decentralized structure may be welcoming the announcement. But given the current state of politics, doubts arise regarding whether that effort is feasible and whether it may deepen existing conflict and division.
 

National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik, center, poses for a commemorative photo with floor leaders of various parties at his office in the National Assembly on April 3, ahead of the submission of a draft constitutional amendment. The main opposition People Power Party did not participate in the proposal. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

 
Revising a nation’s constitutional framework requires a high level of political agreement. With the current polarization and hostility between political factions, it is difficult to be confident that such a major project can proceed smoothly. While the proposed revisions are said to involve few major disagreements, both the substance and process behind the amendments are critical in an undertaking of this scale.
 
In that respect, it is worth revisiting the history of the 1987 constitutional revision. At the time, the ruling Democratic Justice Party secured 148 of 276 seats in the 12th National Assembly — a clear majority. The opposition New Korea Democratic Party initially won 67 seats and later expanded to 103 by absorbing other opposition forces before being reorganized as the Reunification Democratic Party, which had 74 seats. Despite this near two-to-one disparity, the constitutional revision was conducted through an “eight-member political consultative group,” composed of four representatives from each side.
 
The talks began on July 31, 1987, and progressed smoothly. By Aug. 31, the participants had reached an agreement on the constitutional preamble and all 130 articles, excluding only supplementary provisions, such as the effective date and the timing of legislative elections. 
 
Reflecting on how such a comprehensive agreement was reached within a month, Lee Yong-hee, one of the opposition representatives, later noted that the most contentious issue, the structure of political power, had already been resolved by Roh Tae-woo’s June 29 Declaration on democratization in the lead-up to his presidency. Lee also emphasized that the participants, being senior politicians, understood each other’s positions well, which helped facilitate negotiations.
 
Comparing that period with the present reveals several differences. First, disputes were not settled through majority rule. Despite a significant gap in parliamentary seats, the negotiating body was evenly composed, signaling a clear intention not to handle constitutional revision through numerical dominance. The discussions proceeded through negotiation and consensus rather than unilateral imposition. This approach later became a guiding principle in parliamentary practice after the 13th National Assembly in 1988.
 

Related Article

• Cabinet approves motion to make amendments to Constitution

• Rival rallies take place in front of Constitutional Court to mark one year since Yoon's removal from office

• Lee’s constitutional push should lead to decentralization

• Public demand for constitutional reform can no longer be delayed

• Assembly speaker vows to reform 'outdated' Constitution with local election referendum

 
Today, however, majoritarian and unilateral politics have become commonplace. Even if there appears to be little disagreement over the broad direction of reform, differences are likely to emerge when specific issues are debated. It is uncertain whether the current National Assembly can resolve such differences through compromise rather than relying on numerical strength.
 
Lee also pointed to mutual understanding among senior lawmakers as a key factor in the success of the 1987 negotiations, suggesting that the situation required political experience, authority and a degree of trust between the ruling and opposition parties. In contrast, today’s politics is marked by relationships that are arguably more adversarial and exclusionary than even those of the authoritarian era. Under such conditions, it is difficult to expect lawmakers to exercise political judgment and reach agreements through concessions.
 
Even if representatives manage to reach a difficult compromise, it remains unclear whether their parties will uphold it. There have been recent cases in which agreements between floor leaders of rival parties collapsed due to internal opposition within the Democratic Party. If agreements on routine political matters can fail in this way, there is even greater uncertainty surrounding a consensus on restructuring the national system would hold.
 
Moreover, party leadership itself often appears constrained by the views of hard-line supporters or even political YouTubers, making it difficult to expect principled decisions or concessions that could break negotiation deadlocks.
 

The original Constitution of Korea, first promulgated on July 17, 1948, is on display at the National Assembly Museum in Yeouido, western Seoul, on April 6, the day a notice of a constitutional amendment proposed by 187 lawmakers was reviewed and approved at a Cabinet meeting. [YONHAP]

 
For these reasons, despite many people having long waited for constitutional reform, the current environment does not inspire optimism. The 1987 Constitution has endured for nearly four decades not only because of public agreement on its content, but also because it was the product of negotiation, compromise and leadership across party lines.
 
A political calculus that focuses on securing just enough additional support to propose a revision bill is precisely what must be avoided. Even if it takes more time, the Democratic Party and the People Power Party, which represent the country’s two main political camps, need to sit down together and build consensus step by step, beginning with areas of least disagreement.
 
The Korean saying ujikjigye suggests that taking a roundabout path can ultimately be the faster way. This is especially true for a task as consequential as constitutional reform.


This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.