A longstanding political proposal in the nation is to rewrite the Constitution. The issue is coming to the fore again as the political parties are gearing up for the December presidential election.

Of great concern at the moment is whether or not the proposal for constitutional revision will be included among the “extraordinary political reforms” that Rep. Park Geun-hye has promised as presidential nominee of the ruling Saenuri Party.

When the party nominated her as the presidential candidate last week, she said in her acceptance speech that one of her first tasks would be to create a special commission for political reform. Among the most notable targets of her envisioned political reforms was rampant bribery involving those close to the president ― family members, relatives, confidants and aides.

Park believes such corruption is directly related to the current presidential system of government. She said at a recent debate on political issues that the current five-year, single-term presidency breeds unbridled corruption and fails to help maintain consistency in policy. As such, she said she supports a proposal to rewrite the Constitution to allow a president serving a four-year term to pursue a second term.

But she fell short of committing herself to rewriting the Constitution when she said she could push for a constitutional revision if she was assured of public support.

A constitutional revision is also supported by three of the four presidential hopefuls vying for nomination by the main opposition Democratic United Party. Rep. Moon Jae-in, the frontrunner in the race, believes it is necessary to replace what he regards as the imperial presidency with a new system of governance ― be it one permitting the president and the prime minister to share power or a cabinet system of government. But he says he prefers the cabinet system with the prime minister being the first among equals.

Like Park, however, Moon refuses to commit himself to constitutional amendment. He says it is not desirable to focus on constitutional revision during the period of transition from one administration to another. Instead, he says he will launch a parliamentary debate if he is elected president.

Professor Ahn Cheol-soo of Seoul National University, a potentially formidable presidential contender, who has yet to declare his bid for the presidency, has so far made no direct comment on constitutional amendment. But he refers to a need for power sharing, saying that power is not concentrated on one single person in a mature democracy.

Park, Moon and Ahn are exercising caution when it comes to constitutional revision, possibly because they do not wish to see it upstage other crucial issues, such as spending more on welfare and taxing the rich more. That is understandable.

But they will have to commit themselves to constitutional revision if they are convinced, as they say they are, that the current system of governance places too much power in the hands of one person and that it is a cause of rampant corruption. Of course, this is not to say that constitutional revision must be placed center stage in the upcoming race for the presidency.

Instead, each candidate will be able to include it among his or her election promises. He or she will be able to offer a schedule and state his or her favored system of governance. Such information will surely help the electorate determine whom to vote for.

The demand for constitutional revision is based on a belief that the Constitution, revised in 1987, has outlived its primary objective of preventing the nation from falling into a long-lasting authoritarian rule again. The five-year, single-term presidency has successfully served this purpose, given that Korea has evolved into a maturing democracy.

But the downside is that the president is allowed to exercise too much power, which has proved to be a source of corruption. Moreover, he starts slipping into lame-duck status in his fourth or final year in office, making it difficult to maintain consistency in policy.

For these reasons, those running in the presidential election will do well to commit themselves to setting the process of constitutional revision in motion, preferably in the first year in office to ensure that it will not lose momentum.