Chiefs of the nation’s smallest administrative districts ― si, gun and gu ― issued a statement last week to oppose the government’s proposals to reform the local government system.

Mayors of the 25 gus in Seoul held a demonstration in Gwanghwamun on the same day, which was followed by a similar protest by a group of local councilors in Suwon, Gyeonggi Province. We will likely see similar protests in the coming months, all of which tell us how arduous the reform will be.

If carried out, the proposals will overhaul key elements of the current local autonomy system that have been in place since 1995. After 20 years of operation, we absolutely need to review this important institution.

Moreover, problems in Korea’s local government system have already been exposed, including pressure from partisan national politics and ideological polarization, and inefficiency and corruption.

The proposals, which were endorsed by the Cabinet last month, include granting wider delegation of authority from the central government to local governments, providing greater autonomy to local police and allowing local governments to collect more taxes.

There are few reasons to oppose proposals like these. For instance, the proposal to allocate more tax revenue to local governments would help improve their fiscal health. This is important given that the average fiscal self-sufficiency rate of local governments has declined to 44.8 percent from 63.5 percent in 1995.

However, the package of proposals includes highly contentious issues, as evidenced by the vigorous opposition from local administrators and councilors.

One such issue is the suggestion that the local councils at the smallest administrative districts be abolished in Seoul and five other metropolitan cities. It also proposed that chief administrators in every si, gun and gu of the six largest municipalities in all but Seoul be appointed by the mayor, instead of being elected in a popular direct vote.

In addition, the panel called for a ban on political parties nominating candidates for mayors and councilors at the county level.

These proposals regarding the local administrations and councils in the smallest administrative districts drew the fiercest protests from critics, who claim that they threaten the basic tenets of grassroots democracy. But it is nothing but an attempt to protect their vested interests.

We have already witnessed that problems with local governments and councils at the county-level districts have done more harm than good to grassroots democracy, as they have been subjugated by divisive national politics and tainted by inefficiency and corruption.

There have been numerous cases in which candidates tried to buy nominations by bribing lawmakers or senior members of political parties. Those who were elected then were easily tempted to recoup their investment through corrupt means. In addition, for urban dwellers in large municipalities, the divisions of residential districts are often meaningless.

It is against this backdrop that the reform of the local governments and local councils at the county-level is essential to overhauling the local government system. We cannot achieve real grassroots democracy without rectifying the problems at the bottom level.