[Editorial] Ballots cast in the dark

In South Korea, elections for superintendents of education are held at the same time as local elections, but it is very common for voters to cast their ballots without even knowing what kind of people the superintendent candidates are.

The upcoming June 3 election is no different. A total of 58 people are running as candidates for superintendent in 16 metropolitan and provincial offices of education. They took part in TV debates, but almost no one paid attention.

In Seoul in particular, a record eight candidates entered the race. This number is not only the highest since the introduction of the direct election system for superintendents of education, but also the largest among all superintendent contests in this election. Voters are only left even more confused about which candidate to choose.

Although political parties are prohibited from nominating candidates in the name of ensuring the independence of education from political power, the candidates are generally divided into conservative and progressive camps. The record number of candidates running for Seoul superintendent of education resulted from the fact that, although both camps attempted to unify their candidates, some refused to take part in their own primary process or rejected its outcome. Similar things happened in other regions.

Defying agreements to unify candidates has become common in superintendent of education elections. There has also been a case in which someone ran again in a by-election for superintendent of education after being released through a special pardon. He was serving time for bribing a rival candidate — an election law violation that also cost him his superintendent post. In addition to moral condemnation of his shamelessness, he faced strong criticism in particular for running again while still having failed to repay most of the government campaign subsidies that must be returned under the election act if a violation is found.

The populism of campaign promises — poured out indiscriminately by candidates across both progressive and conservative camps in an attempt to win voters’ favor with cash — is such that it puts that of politicians to shame. According to a survey by a daily newspaper, as many as 40 candidates made such pledges. Their promised cash support ranges from at least 100,000 won ($66) to as much as 50 million won per student.

Many candidates promised to provide 1 million won per student upon entering middle or high school, to be invested in a fund that could then be used upon high school graduation to pay for college tuition or job preparation expenses. One candidate pledged fully free early childhood education, expenses for transportation to school and return to home, and full support for the costs of school trips and field learning activities.

The promised support grew like an escalating wager, to the point that one candidate even proposed creating a "self-reliance fund" of up to 50 million won per student, by matching parents’ contributions with funds from the education office budget over the course of schooling from elementary to high school.

There is even an absurd pledge to provide 200,000 won per student per month to cover after-school private education expenses, even though an education superintendent is responsible for the development of public education.

One of the main reasons education superintendent candidates are able to make such pledges is a loophole in the local education financial grant system, under which 20.79 percent of internal tax revenue is automatically allocated to local education offices every year.

As the number of students declines while the grant continues to increase each year, candidates end up making pledges that amount to cash handouts. Given the low level of voter interest, there is also likely an intention to win votes through populist, vote-buying-style pledges.

The direct election system for superintendents of education, first implemented in 2007, no longer contributes to the development of education. Rather, its side effects are only growing amid voter indifference.