Turbulence in the Seoul Superintendent By-Election Amid Candidate Controversies

The upcoming Seoul Superintendent by-election, scheduled for October 16th, is already stirring controversy due to debates surrounding the candidates' past actions and political ideologies.

The upcoming Seoul Superintendent by-election, scheduled for October 16th, is already stirring controversy due to debates surrounding the candidates' past actions and political ideologies. Triggered by the resignation of former superintendent Cho Hee-yeon, this by-election has become a battleground of disputes over candidate qualifications and political neutrality. We delve into what’s happening and where the election could be headed, along with discussions on potential changes to the superintendent election system.

On October 16th, a by-election will be held to elect a new Seoul Superintendent of Education. This election comes after former superintendent Cho Hee-yeon was sentenced to 18 months in prison, suspended for two years, for allegedly giving improper orders to rehire dismissed teachers from the Korean Teachers and Education Workers Union. As a result, Cho lost his position under relevant laws, and a by-election was called to fill the vacancy.

A total of 15 candidates from both the progressive and conservative sides have declared their candidacies, leading to intense competition. However, controversies surrounding candidates from both sides have caused turbulence in the election process. In the progressive camp, former superintendent Kwak No-hyun is at the center of controversy. Kwak lost his position 12 years ago after being convicted of bribery involving a rival candidate. His decision to run again has been criticized as inappropriate. Moreover, he has faced further backlash for mentioning the impeachment of President Yoon Suk-yeol during his campaign announcement, which is seen as violating the political neutrality required for a superintendent.

On the conservative side, former lawmaker Cho Jun-hyuk has faced criticism due to a recording of him using abusive language against another candidate two years ago. He has also drawn flak for saying that he needs to “cleanse schools tainted by leftist ideologies over the past 10 years,” which is perceived as compromising political neutrality. Additionally, Kim Kyung-beom, a professor at Seoul National University and a candidate from the progressive camp, was involved in last year's leak of the 2028 university entrance reform draft by the Ministry of Education, but he denied any responsibility, sparking further controversy.

The election outcome is likely to depend on how the two sides manage their unification processes. The progressive side currently leads the conservative side by about 10 percentage points in terms of superintendent preference, with both sides emphasizing the need for a unified candidate to secure victory. However, progress towards unification has been slow. The progressive side has struggled to agree on the rules for selecting a unified candidate, while the conservative side has narrowed its candidates to five, but policy announcements have been canceled, and signs of division have emerged with the formation of a third unification group.

Additionally, there is growing discussion about changing the superintendent election system. Often dubbed a ‘blind’ election due to a lack of public interest, the election has sparked debate on whether to abolish direct elections for superintendents. Some advocate for a new "Governor-Superintendent Running Mate System," where voters only vote for the governor, and the superintendent is decided based on the governor’s election results. The government announced this plan early last year, and the ruling party recently introduced a bill to this effect, bringing further attention to how this debate will unfold.

The Seoul Superintendent by-election is mired in candidate controversies and ideological disputes. With calls for reforming the superintendent election system growing louder, the outcome of this election is awaited with keen interest. As we look ahead, it is crucial to consider which direction will best promote educational development and fairness.