The proposal to cut the number of parliamentary seats has been revived. The ruling Saenuri Party and the main opposition Democratic United Party have agreed to downsize the National Assembly.

The two parties are expected to start talks soon to discuss the number of seats to be reduced and other related issues. Yet it remains to be seen whether they would really put the proposal into practice.

The idea was first put forward by Ahn Cheol-soo, a former independent presidential candidate who set forth political reform as his No. 1 election pledge. But it was destined for the dustbin after the former software mogul bowed out last month, declaring Moon Jae-in, the DUP presidential hopeful, as the sole opposition candidate.

Yet the two parties have embraced it, reversing their previous opposition to it. It is not difficult to guess why they have done so.

With the Dec. 19 election less than 10 days away, their candidates are in a dead heat. So they are desperate to win over Ahn’s supporters who remain undecided after the novice politician quit midway through the campaign.

The two parties’ efforts to woo Ahn’s followers are understandable. Yet their attempt to revive the proposal is difficult to justify as it is an opportunistic gesture that lacks sincerity. They are pushing for the plan without the conviction that it is a step in the right direction.

When Ahn first proposed in October to reduce the number of lawmakers from the present 300 to 200, both parties called it “unrealistic” and denounced him for coming up with a proposal aimed at tapping into people’s distrust of politics and politicians.

It was not just the two parties that slammed the idea. Almost all political commentators criticized it. They noted that the key problem of the National Assembly was not that there were too many lawmakers but that it has been unable to reflect the will of the people.

DUP candidate Moon himself was critical of Ahn’s proposal. He was willing to increase the number of proportional representation seats, currently set at 54, but was opposed to downsizing the Assembly. He stood his ground during his TV debate with Ahn last month.

But he pledged Thursday to reduce the number of parliamentary seats, as proposed by Ahn, without offering any explanation about his change of stance.

The Saenuri Party’s about-face is a typical case of political expediency. The party said its decision to cut the number of lawmakers was designed to demonstrate its commitment to political reform, a cause championed by Ahn.

Yet it denounced Ahn for joining forces with Moon and campaigning for him. It asserted that Ahn’s call for political reform lost its appeal the moment he decided to campaign for Moon because he joined hands with a political party that has not bothered to live up to his demands for change.

The two parties’ flip-flop was typical of their tendency to make politically convenient decisions in dealing with national issues. This calls into question whether they are really committed to the numerous reform pledges they have put forward.

The parties should realize that what they need to change is not the number of lawmakers. It is the way they handle state affairs. To restore public trust in politics, they need to behave in a trustworthy way in the first place.