The ruling and opposition parties have agreed to form a special parliamentary committee on political reform, which will be tasked with, among other things, rezoning the electoral districts across the country.

The reform was necessitated by the Constitutional Court’s rulings in October that the current constituency map that allows a 3-to-1 population ratio of the most populous district to the least populous one breaches the basic law, and that the ratio should be reduced to a maximum of 2-to-1.

Addressing the disproportionate representation would affect 62 of the current 246 parliamentary electoral districts, and this alone would make the reform a tall order, since redrawing constituencies in some regions would become a life-and-death issue for incumbents and potential candidates.

So it is quite natural that the leaders of the Saenuri Party and the New Politics Alliance for Democracy agreed to entrust the reform, which has already loomed large as a major political issue, to an ad-hoc panel.

What’s regrettable is that when they struck the deal on rezoning, leaders of the rival parties failed to reach an accord on another important political issue ― perhaps more important than redrawing electoral boundaries: when the parliament will begin to discuss rewriting the Constitution.

It was right for the NPAD’s interim leader Moon Hee-sang and floor leader Woo Yoon-keun to press their counterparts ― Kim Moo-sung and Lee One-koo ― to accept their proposal to form a special parliamentary committee.

It is dismaying that Kim and Lee, faithfully following President Park Geun-hye’s guidance, have said that now is not the time to discuss an issue like constitutional revision but to devote national resources to reinvigorating the economy. It is pitiful because we know that even the ruling party leaders, especially Kim, are strong advocates of constitutional amendment.

Kim made headlines last October when, during a visit to Beijing, he mentioned the need to rewrite the basic law, which was last amended in 1987 at the height of the pro-democracy movement.

His comments enraged Park, who had already warned that any discussion of the issue would overshadow all other major national agendas, including the economy, and Kim obediently changed his position. In their separate New Year news conferences, both Park and Kim reaffirmed their opposition to discussion on constitutional amendment.

The core power structure of the current Constitution is largely the result of the popular democracy movement, which ended military-backed dictatorial rule in 1987. Legislators and the general public at the time were more concerned about stopping the decadeslong tradition of extended military rule than creating the best possible political system for the country, which was why they opted for a five-year, single-term presidency.

A large majority of Koreans, not least lawmakers ― a recent poll found that about 230 of the nearly 300 National Assembly members support amending the basic law ― believe that the system has fulfilled its mission and that the nation now deserves a better one.

Moreover, other key parts of the basic law need to be changed to keep up with the times ― particularly its prescriptions about rights, the economy, local autonomy and an eventual reunification with North Korea.

Park often says that it is the “duty of this generation” to revitalize the economy and restructure sectors like labor and finance to hand over a better country to the generations to come.

The Constitution sets out basic principles and beliefs by which our laws are governed. Seeking the best possible one is more important for the nation’s future than raising the economic growth rate a little.