[Column] Education Superintendent Election Amid Indifference, Beware of Arguments Against Direct Election System

Changed to direct election system to prevent corruption
Appointment system introduction undermines educational autonomy
TV debates and election law improvements also needed

"There are no special pledges to be seen."

On the 16th, a citizen in their 30s who did not participate in the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education Superintendent by-election said this. The voter turnout for this election was 23.5%, the lowest since the direct election system for education superintendents was introduced in 2008. The education superintendent election has long been a subject of indifference. Moreover, since this election was a by-election, the preparation period was short, making it even harder to attract public interest.

The stigma of the education superintendent election being a "dark election" has its reasons. Candidates once again focused solely on unification. Rather than highlighting the distinctiveness and sincerity of the head responsible for Seoul education, securing the title of representative of either the progressive or conservative camp is more helpful for vote-getting strategies. The competition over policies disappeared, replaced by mutual slander and factional fights that shook the Seoul education superintendent election scene. Some citizens met at polling stations even said, "I voted just to block the opposing candidate." This excessive political logic that damages the essence of the education superintendent election is spreading its vicious cycle from candidates to citizens.

Amid historically low voter turnout, some have raised the "uselessness of direct elections" theory for education superintendents. From a different perspective, there are views seeking the running mate system, where the superintendent is elected together with the mayor, as an alternative. In the past, the education superintendent election was by presidential appointment, then operated by indirect elections through education committees and school operation committees in the 1990s, before changing to the current direct election system by residents in the 2000s. The election system reform at that time was made as a measure to address corruption or illegal dealings within the educator community. While national education policy is decided by central government departments, detailed policies governing elementary, middle, and high schools nationwide are decided by the education superintendent.

If the appointment system for education superintendents is introduced or changed to a running mate system containing some appointment elements, the autonomy of education will inevitably decline further than now. Can we expect autonomy from education superintendents who will more blatantly be influenced by political pressure? If problems arise in the system and it is judged that it does not function properly, it should be fixed. However, it would be problematic if it becomes a choice that damages the hard-earned educational autonomy.

Changes to the system for electing new education superintendents must go through a sufficient process of consensus-building. Along with this, the current problems of the education superintendent election must also be improved. In this Seoul education superintendent election, there was virtually no TV debate where major candidates could review their education pledges during the voting period. There was even an absurd scene where the newly elected Superintendent Jeong Geun-sik could not participate in the TV debate because he did not meet the invitation criteria under the Public Official Election Act.

The reason the education superintendent election has become a dark election also lies in the Public Official Election Act, which is disconnected from reality. Efforts to correct the problems of the Public Official Election Act and efforts to escape excessive politics and find the essence of education must continue to correct the derailment of the education superintendent election.