Amending the Constitution in a democracy

Park Sang-hoon The author is a political scientist. At the Cabinet meeting on May 6, President Lee Jae Myung said, "Anyone who opposes constitutional revision is an apologist for illegal martial law." There are several points worth considering carefully. First, the Constitution's purpose is to protect the free will of each citizen. We accepted the rule of a lawful government over anarchy because we judged it to be a wiser way to safeguard freedom. In doing so, we delegated power and, in return, came to possess "inviolable fundamental rights." The Constitution is the public document that guarantees those rights. Citizens are free to criticize and oppose. They are not persecuted for criticizing the administration. They are not punished for preferring a system other than democracy. They may oppose the Constitution itself, and of course, they may oppose amending the Constitution. This is the constitutional democracy we have chosen. Third, it is also worth reflecting on the act of defining the other side as evil rather than simply saying that one disagrees. For generations that experienced past military regimes, there is a familiar logic of rule. It lies in equating criticism of the administration with "acts that benefit North Korea." The Democratic Party must avoid the language of governance that mobilizes fear. One can oppose illegal martial law and still oppose constitutional revision. If opposition to an amendment is equated with apologism for illegal martial law, that too can become a form of repression. No one has the right to brand someone a bad person simply because that person holds a different opinion. Fifth, the Constitution is a public document that cannot be changed frequently. President Lee used the analogy that "if the body grows and the clothes no longer fit, the clothes must be changed." But reflecting changes in the times or in society is the role of ordinary laws. The very essence and character of a Constitution is that it cannot be changed often. Moreover, our Constitution is a rigid document that is designed to be difficult to amend. If one seeks to change such a difficult-to-amend Constitution, efforts to build a political consensus close to unanimity must come first. Looking back at how electoral reform without opposition consent led to extreme political polarization, constitutional revision is all the more an issue that urgently requires consensus. Sixth, it is also worth considering that the president made such an excessive remark one day before the National Assembly was scheduled to vote on the constitutional amendment bill on May 7. The Cabinet meeting was hardly an appropriate venue for it. A presidential Constitution is based on the separation of powers in order to restrain "arbitrary rule." Our Constitution is structured that way as well. Although the president represents the state externally, domestically, he is only the head of the executive branch and has no authority to oversee the legislature or the judiciary. It does not conform to the Constitution for the head of the executive branch to pressure the National Assembly with forceful language. Presidential instruction at a Cabinet meeting on an agenda item that is not subject to Cabinet deliberation or resolution is inappropriate. Seventh, some may counter that if everyone is free to express an opinion, the president must have that right as well. In a democracy, the delegation of sovereignty entails an exchange of power and rights. Those entrusted with power have their rights restricted. They must disclose and be scrutinized over their personal history and information, including how they built private wealth. They must also promise not to use public authority for their own rights or freedom. We must understand that it is not "What can the president not do?" but rather "Because he is president," he cannot do such things. As John Locke said long ago, a ruler is a special being who has legitimacy only when devoted to the rights and freedom of t...