Will South Korea see the 10th amendment to the Constitution next year? If this is attained, the revision would mark the first in 30 years since the ninth was promulgated in October 1987.

More and more lawmakers, including some presidential hopefuls, are calling for a constitutional revision “before” the coming presidential election. The ruling Saenuri Party said it has reached an agreement with some opposition lawmakers on launching a special committee for constitutional amendments early next year.

The movement is doubtful in the currently extraordinary situation involving the Park Geun-hye scandal, as a large portion of the Assemblymen remain skeptical about it.

The opinion of “revision before the presidential election” may be reasonable under the scenario that the Constitutional Court will deny the Dec. 9 parliamentary accord to impeach Park. In that case, the presidential election could refer to the originally set date of Dec. 20, 2017.

And what kind of amendments would the Assembly push for? Do lawmakers want to propose a bill on revising the clause that mandates the nation should select the successor “within 60 days” after the president’s departure, aimed at extending the period?

The assumption is impossible to realize, given the Constitutional Court’s current deliberation on the impeachment accord. The presidential election could be conducted as early as March should the court speed up its review and accept the accord in January 2017.

Even if the court’s decision is delayed for several months, the Assembly should undergo four procedures for an amendment: (1) proposal by a majority of the 300 seats, (2) deliberation on the proposal in the Assembly, (3) “yes” votes from at least 200 of the 300 seats for passage and (4) the majority of approval votes in a referendum.

It would take about five to six months at the fastest. As there is no limit for the period of deliberation & consensus gaining as the second step after a proposal, it could take a year or more until proclamation.

Few can be assured of the success of the amendment before the Constitutional Court publicizes its decision of the impeachment accord.

Then, will the Assembly move to revise the clause that yields the “imperial presidents,” a term many critics have used, under the single-term, five year presidency? If so, a series of prior research and public hearings with scholars should be the basis before choosing a substitute out of the few samples, such as two-term, four-year presidency and a parliamentary-driven cabinet system.

Gaining the people’s consensus via polls or other methods should also precede any parliamentary proposal.

It is true the nation has undergone a chain of corruption scandals surrounding the families and aides of former and incumbent presidents. So its people cannot downplay the need for constitutional amendments.

The former 19th Assembly, however, did not propose an amendment bill despite the majority seats of the ruling Saenuri Party. It could have initiated talks after Park took office in February 2013.

The present situation is totally different from that of past years. The nation is in an administrative crisis, under which the urgency should be put on replacing the state leader as soon as possible.

The coming activities of the special committee for amendments should be restricted until the next president is selected. There is sufficient time until 2020 for the 20th Assembly.

Meanwhile, Korean citizens have a painful memory of the latest amendment, which was initiated by themselves via the “June demonstrations” 29 years ago.

The people, yearning for democratization, secured the right to directly vote for presidential candidates thanks to the ninth revision. But it eventually turned out to benefit 1979 military coup colluder Roh Tae-woo, who won the 1987 election by beating the split liberal candidates -- Kim Dae-jung and Kim Young-sam.

Nevertheless, few can deny the ninth amendment has paved the way for the country to foster a democratic society.

In that context, constitutional amendment talks should be propelled by the idea of national & political development, not by the political calculations of presidential hopefuls.