Constitutional amendment is emerging as a key political issue at a time when Korean politics, while undergoing an upheaval caused by the crisis in the Park Geun-hye presidency, is gearing up for a major political realignment ahead of the presidential election.

All major parties and potential presidential candidates are engaged in the issue in one way or another. Since last week, three forums of parliamentarians -- one each by the ruling and the main opposition Democratic Party and the third by the Democratic Party and the minor opposition People’s Party -- will have been held.

As seen by the numerous past opinion surveys, a majority of Koreans and lawmakers want to amend the Constitution which was last rewritten in 1987 in the wake of a pro-democracy movement that forced the Chun Doo-hwan government to accept, among other things, the election of the president in a popular, direct vote.

Calls for amending the basic law have gained additional momentum since the outbreak of the Choi Soon-sil scandal. Many believe that the Constitution still gives the president too much power and that it was one of the reasons Park’s civilian confidante could peddle influence and make personal gains.

Also giving impetus to discussion of constitutional amendment is the impending realignment of the political terrain, which is being accelerated by the breakup of the ruling Saenuri Party and the decision of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to run in the presidential election. Some parties and presidential hopefuls are already indicating formation of alliances based on their position on when and how to amend the Constitution.

A problem is that there are as many opinions and positions as there are parties and presidential hopefuls. For now, the biggest issue of contention is the timing of the proposed constitutional amendment.

The most proactive proposal comes from the People’s Party and its former leader Ahn Cheol-soo, a potential presidential candidate. The party announced last week that the party’s official position is to push for an “immediate” amendment. Sohn Hak-kyu, another liberal presidential hopeful, shares this position.

In reality, however, revising the Constitution any time before the next presidential election would not be easy, especially if the Constitutional Court upholds the parliamentary impeachment of Park, which would give the nation only two months before an election to elect her replacement.

Bearing this and other factors in mind, Ahn suggests that candidates make a promise that anyone who succeeds Park will revise the Constitution in 2018. Seoul Mayor Park Won-soon, a member of the Democratic Party, has a similar position: He suggested that Park’s successor push for a constitutional amendment in 2019 and hold a presidential election under the new law, which means the president will have cut his or her tenure to three years.

There are more senior Democratic Party members, including the former leader Kim Chong-in, who agrees with the proposal for a “conditional” amendment entailing the reduction of the next president’s otherwise five-year term of office.

As things stand, the issue is pitting the nonmainstreamers against Moon Jae-in, former party leader and the liberal bloc’s leading presidential hopeful, and his mainstream faction. Since the Choi scandal began demolishing Park and her conservative ruling party, Moon rejected any discussion of constitutional rewriting as an “impure” move to distract public attention away from the popular movement to oust Park.

As he sees the highest chances of liberals winning power in 10 years and as he is running ahead of the herd of liberal hopefuls, Moon may well think that he is within reach of power and that the status quo should remain intact until the next presidential election.

Such an attitude will only portray him as a man who seeks short-sighted, short-term gain. All in all, it would not be easy to rewrite the basic law in a few months, but that does not justify Moon’s outright rejection of the issue.

It is true that Moon is not the only one who thinks of the issue from their personal and political perspective. But he and other politicians who oppose discussion of the issue itself should be more open-minded toward the efforts to change the basic law which is outdated in many respects. Then they could reach a consensus on when and how to do that.