(Kim Do-yeon’s column) Direct elections where there shouldn’t be any |

University president direct election, conflict deteriorates into group egoism
Voters in the superintendent election consider factions rather than promises.
Candidates become more political and fight on different sides
Uneducational and budget-wasting, how long will the direct system last?

There are various ways to elect the head of various social organizations, including the president, the head of state, but our people seem to prefer direct election the most in all cases. On May 10, 1948, the first National Assembly election of the Republic of Korea was held. It was a truly meaningful event in which the people directly chose those in power for the first time since Dangun. The major principles of direct election, namely universal suffrage where everyone has the right to vote, equal election where everyone has one vote, and secret elections for free expression of opinion, were implemented all at once.

However, such direct elections were not easy even in the birthplace of democracy. In France, after the Great Revolution of 1789, freedom and equality were emphasized more than any other country in the world, but these were ideologies that applied only to men. Women’s political participation was suppressed. Despite many difficulties, French women were finally able to exercise their right to vote for the first time in 1945, thanks to a persistent struggle spanning over 150 years.

After the Yushin in 1972, we elected the president through indirect elections held in so-called gymnasiums, and since this was only a way to strengthen the dictatorship, public resistance was great. Then, in February 1981, candidate Chun Doo-hwan, who received 90% of the 5,000 electoral votes through an indirect election, was elected as the 12th president. Because the process of his rise to power was undemocratic from beginning to end, indirect elections were imprinted in our minds as a flawed system that deviated significantly from democracy.

And in 1987, the June 29 Declaration finally led to the constitutional amendment of a direct presidential election system. It was a great joy, as if democracy had been achieved. Naturally, other large and small organizations in society followed suit, and the first places where the direct direct system was implemented were public universities. The most important decision at a university is, of course, the election of the president. But for this purpose, is a straight line in which each professor casts one vote really reasonable? Will universities avoid populism and group egoism? Universities can only develop further if they become, in a sense, an unequal and competitive organization where academic ability is respected. What would happen to the team’s competitiveness if the players on a professional baseball or soccer team all cast one vote and selected their own coach? The direct election system is turning universities into frogs in the well. Unfortunately, we have been implementing this system for nearly 40 years.

Another direct election taking place in the education field is the election of superintendents of education, but this seems to be a truly non-educational event. In fact, there is a fundamental problem with the superintendent of education line. In other words, in our society, parents rapidly become indifferent to education once their children complete college entrance exams. It’s unfortunate and disappointing, but that’s reality. In this respect, those interested in the superintendent of education election are almost limited to parents of elementary, middle, and high school students, and that number is around 7.5 million. This is far less than 20% of the total 44 million voters, and in fact, when the superintendent of education election was held alone, the voter turnout was only 15-20%. To increase this, elections for superintendents of education and city and provincial governors are held on the same day, but even in this case, the superintendents only vote because they received the ballots. What is the meaning of a straight line that the vast majority are not interested in?

Political party recommendations for superintendent of education candidates were excluded under the logic that education should not be subordinated to politics, but this actually made the situation worse. In our society, where all voting is a political act, voters are only interested in the political tendencies of candidates. How many people go to the voting booth after seeing the education-related promises made by the superintendent of education candidates? Candidates are bound to become more political as they only look at the conservative and progressive signs. Last year, we entrusted nearly 100 trillion won in taxes to these elected superintendents of education.

The reality of the election world is clearly depicted in ‘Superintendent Elections: Why Education is Destroyed,’ written by Professor Park Yong-su, who ran for the Incheon Metropolitan Office of Education Superintendent election in 2018, after his resignation. To paraphrase what appears at the end of the book, “The election of superintendents of education is clearly harmful. Don’t just leave it alone. It is a sin against history and children. It is the most uneducational election that blocks our children’s future, wastes the education budget, and is a very bad election that divides people into fights. It must be abolished as soon as possible. Only then can education breathe.” Despite these cries, why does the direct election system for superintendents of education continue? This is something we should seriously reflect on ourselves.