[Opinion] Another Perspective on the Dark Education Superintendent Election

The superintendent election, which was rife with negative descriptors such as blind voting, indifference, uncertainty, lottery, previous conflicts, ‘education’-less, and ideological struggles, has come to an end. Most media outlets also criticized it. When a reporter who criticized the superintendent election was asked about the mayoral candidates’ pledges and district chief candidates’ names, the answer was similarly blind voting.

However, no reports were found criticizing the mayoral or district chief elections as blind voting. This is because even without knowing the candidates or their pledges, voters can vote based on political parties. To ensure the political neutrality of education, the superintendent election prohibits party nominations or any election involvement by specific parties. By nature, it inevitably becomes a blind election.

If voters want to know the candidates’ pledges, they must make an effort. This applies equally to superintendents, mayors, district chiefs, or city council members. The difference is that candidates affiliated with political parties can be voted for based on their party even if voters do not know specific pledges, but superintendent candidates have no party affiliation, so this is not possible. Criticizing the superintendent election as a blind election without efforts to learn about specific pledges and simply comparing it to other elections without party nominations is a result of misunderstanding the essence of the system.

It is said that the number of invalid votes in the superintendent election was 2.5 times that of the provincial governors. Some media criticized this as evidence of a blind election, but given the characteristics of the superintendent election, it can also be seen as a desirable behavior. According to decision-making theory, the criteria for participation in decision-making processes are relevance and expertise. Allowing people with no relevance or expertise in education to participate in the superintendent election could distort the results. If voters do not know whom to choose or have no interest in who is elected, abstaining might be a better option.

As an example of a blind election, the past hypothesis of ‘incumbent = winner’ was often cited as the incumbent superintendent premium. However, in this election, 4 out of 13 incumbent superintendents lost. Although this has been interpreted as a result aligned with local politics in regions with conservative-progressive two-way contests, it can also be seen as proof that voters’ choices were not blind even in a blind election setup.

Superintendent candidates presenting themselves as conservative or progressive is part of efforts to overcome the blind election. The problem is that the moment a candidate claims to be conservative or progressive, the superintendent election reveals political tendencies. This is why the superintendent election, while advocating political neutrality in education, is criticized as a thoroughly political election.

Resolving the blind election undermines the political neutrality of education, and preserving the political neutrality of education makes a blind election without party nominations inevitable. It is a dilemma. Only when we accept the blind election and agree on the principle that the political neutrality of education must be maintained can improvements to the superintendent election be made.

In the short term, the use of terms indicating political tendencies such as conservative or progressive should be prohibited. The display of candidates’ involvement in teachers’ organizations, like their political party activity history, should also be banned. This is because teachers’ organizations have long been transformed into political groups. The colors of banners or promotional materials implying affiliation with specific parties should also be prohibited.

Autonomy, expertise, and political neutrality are values of education guaranteed by the Constitution. Alternatives such as the running mate system, party nomination system, or appointment system lead to the politicization of education and thus fail to meet constitutional values. In the long term, it is worth considering the introduction of a limited direct election system where only education-related or expert education officials participate in elections.

Song Ki-chang, Professor, Department of Education, Sookmyung Women’s University

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.