On the 7th, ruling party lawmakers did not participate in the vote in the plenary session hall, in accordance with the party's stance, and the constitutional amendment bill was dismissed due to a lack of quorum. [Photo=Yonhap News]

The People Power Party stated that they "do not oppose the content of this constitutional amendment bill." However, they believe the timing is not right. Their position is to re-vote after discussions between the ruling and opposition parties following the local elections.

On the surface, this appears to be a cautious stance. However, one of the most dangerous phrases in politics is "not now." This is because it is often used not as a language of opposition, but as a deferral to alleviate immediate pressure.

The Trap of "Not Now"

Therefore, we cannot simply rejoice in today's dismissal. While the vote was prevented, the direction itself has not been blocked. The People Power Party has provided little explanation as to why the core content of the constitutional amendment bill is problematic. They have only spoken about the procedure and timing.

However, in constitutional matters, content is more important than timing. If they truly believed there was a national risk, they should have clearly opposed it before the public immediately, rather than postponing it until after the local elections.

The Constitution differs from ordinary laws. Laws can be changed according to the times, but the Constitution is a document that defines the nation's spirit and direction. For a sentence to be included in the Constitution is not a mere declaration. It is constantly subject to expanded interpretation in subsequent education, judgments, policies, and political discourse.

A phrase that may initially seem symbolic can, over time, become a standard that moves the entire society. Therefore, constitutional language should always be handled with at least minimal public consensus.

In contemporary politics, particular care must be taken when introducing highly contentious historical or ideological issues into the Constitution. What may be a history of justice for some can still be a subject of debate and interpretation for others.

Democracy is not solely driven by the sentiments of the majority. There must be a minimum consensus that the entire community can bear in the long term. The Constitution is not a declaration of a victorious faction; it should be the ultimate standard for people with different thoughts to live together.

However, such fundamental debates are almost absent in conservative political circles today. The question of when to process something is treated as more important than what is being opposed and why. This is a very dangerous phenomenon. While timing can be a strategy in politics, a strategy without philosophy does not last long. It eventually gets swept away by the current.

What Are Conservative Parties Trying to Protect?

A greater problem is the confusion among their supporters. The public cannot know whether the People Power Party genuinely believes there are no issues with the content of the constitutional amendment bill, or if they are holding back their words due to electoral concerns. The attitude of "the content is fine, but now is not the time" can ultimately be interpreted as "it is possible someday." In actual politics, such ambiguity often solidifies into de facto consent over time.

Conservative parties should at least show clear standards regarding national identity and constitutional matters. They must first explain what can and cannot be included in the Constitution, why it is dangerous, and why greater public consensus is needed. Without this, conservatism will devolve from a force that provides direction to one that merely follows the trend.

What was dismissed today was just the vote itself. However, a more important question remains. Does the People Power Party truly oppose this constitutional amendment bill? Or were they simply burdened by processing it at this time? If they cannot clearly answer that question, today's dismissal may not be a victory, but merely a postponed passage.

◆ Songsan

A poet and a researcher of history and philosophy. Former director of the Rhee Syngman School. Currently serves as a research advisor for the Korean Modern and Contemporary History Research Association and as the representative of the philosophy forum Lyceum. He has published four poetry collections, co-translated "Heroes of Kokura," and authored "Chosun That Became Myth" and "Humanities on the Tatami." He is actively engaged in the research and practice of liberal culture movements. Songsan is a pen name.