This article argues in favor of the revival of the military merit system, addressing the Constitutional Court’s unconstitutionality ruling and the budgetary issues of alternative support policies for veterans, and argues that the military merit system is the most realistic and appropriate support policy.
In any society made up of people, there are strong and weak individuals. Therefore, if society flows in a natural state without social sanctions, there will definitely be inequality between the strong and the weak. Therefore, all societies strive to solve the problem of inequality between the strong and the weak by establishing social conventions for equality. In our society, the Republic of Korea, the constitution of which we are a part, stipulates a social covenant to guarantee equal rights (Article 11, Paragraph 1, All citizens are equal before the law), and based on this, we have developed and implemented policies to protect the socially vulnerable and ensure equal rights for all citizens. These national policies include quotas for women and mandatory employment for people with disabilities. And the subject of this essay, the military merit system, is one of these national policies to ensure equal rights.
The military points system was enacted to compensate veterans for their sacrifices in the military, and it includes extra points for veterans in civil service examinations and appointments. However, the system was abolished after the Constitutional Court ruled that it was unconstitutional as it violated the right to equality because it disadvantaged women, people with disabilities, and other socially disadvantaged groups. However, both proponents and opponents of the system, as well as the judges of the Constitutional Court, agree on the need to compensate veterans for their sacrifices. As a result, other supportive policies have been proposed to replace the military merit system, but due to practical problems, they have not been implemented and are still being discussed. Therefore, the revival of the military merit system, which is the most realistic supportive policy, is constantly raised, and the controversy for and against it continues. Therefore, in this essay, I would like to express my opinion on the support policy for veterans, especially in favor of the revival of the military family points system. In detail, I will divide the arguments in favor of the revival of the military family points system into three parts: a rebuttal to the arguments against the revival of the military family points system, and a comparison with other support policies for veterans.
First, let’s take a look at the legitimacy of reviving the military scoring system by rebutting the arguments against reviving the military scoring system. Opponents of the revival of the military scoring system challenge the legality of the military scoring system based on three main reasons. They argue that the system has already been ruled unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, so it’s not right to reinstate it, that it violates the equality rights of non-military personnel, and that it violates the right of non-military personnel to hold public office. Let’s take a look at the legitimacy of reviving the military scoring system by rebutting these three reasons.
First of all, the argument that the military scoring system should not be reinstated because it has already been ruled unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court is not correct. When the Constitutional Court ruled the military points system unconstitutional, it was not the military points system itself that was pointed out, but the loss of equity due to excessive points. The Constitutional Court also recognized the legitimacy of the legislative purpose and intent of the military points system. Therefore, the military points system, which is currently being advocated for revival, is no longer a problem because some amendments have been made to compensate for the problematic equity issue. Specifically, the proposed amendments to the military scoring system, which passed the National Defense Committee in December 2008 and is pending before the Judicial Affairs Committee of the National Assembly, have reduced the scoring range from 3 to 5 percent of the perfect score to around 2.5 percent of the score, limited the number of passing students to within 20 percent of the total number of passing students, and limited the number of exams from an unlimited number to a presidential decree.
It is also not correct to argue that the military points system should not be reinstated because it violates the equal rights of non-military personnel. Although Article 39(1) of the Constitution states that all citizens are obligated to defend the country, only men are currently obligated to serve in the military, as Article 3(1) of the Military Service Act, a subordinate law to the Constitution, states that only men are obligated to serve in the military. Therefore, the Military Service Act, which currently requires only men to serve in the military, can be considered unconstitutional because it is inconsistent with the Constitution, which is a higher law. It can also be argued that the obligation of military service for only men constitutes unfavorable treatment as Article 39(2) of the Constitution prohibits unfavorable treatment due to the fulfillment of military service. Therefore, the fact that only men are currently fulfilling the obligation of military service is not constitutional, but rather a system that discriminates against men who fulfill the obligation of military service. Therefore, it is not correct to argue that the military points system violates the equal rights of those who do not go to the military, and it is justified to compensate men who fulfill their military obligations.
It is also incorrect to argue that the military points system should not be reinstated because it violates the right of non-military personnel to hold public office (the right of citizens to be members of national or local government bodies and to hold public office). The argument that the military merit system violates the right of non-military personnel to hold public office is based on the fact that the military merit system does not establish merit-based selection criteria for public officials and uses factors unrelated to the ability to perform the duties required by the office. However, it cannot be said that the skills acquired through military life are unrelated to the job performance required by the public office. A concrete example is a 2009 survey conducted by the National Veterans Administration on the benefits of military life. According to the results of this survey, military life can develop problem-solving skills, leadership, patriotism, and a challenging spirit, and these skills are sufficiently related to the skills required for public office. Therefore, it can be seen as a violation of the right of military service members to be in charge of public affairs to treat military and non-military service members as mechanically equal in the selection process. Therefore, it is not correct to argue that the military point system violates the right of non-military people to hold public office, and it is desirable to recognize the competence of veterans in public office.
In fact, there is a similar case law in the United States regarding the legality of the military preference system: the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that in order for the military merit system to discriminate against women, the legislature’s discriminatory purpose to discriminate against women must be recognized, not the discriminatory effect of having fewer female officials, and ruled that it is not against the law because it is a system that recognizes special abilities such as loyalty to those who have served in the military. Of course, unlike the United States, which has a conscription system, Korea has a draft system, so there are institutional differences, and the social environment is also very different, so direct comparisons are somewhat unreasonable, but what is clear from this case is that Korea’s military merit system cannot be considered to violate the equal rights of those who have not served in the military because it was enacted with the purpose of rewarding veterans for their sacrifices, not to discriminate against them, Nor can it be said that the military merit system violates the right of non-military personnel to hold public office, as the military merit system is used to select people to work in organizations belonging to the government and the state, such as civil servants and teachers, and can be viewed as a necessary skill that requires loyalty and patriotism. Therefore, based on the above arguments against the revival of the military merit system and the case of the United States, the revival of the military merit system can be considered legitimate.
Next, let’s take a look at the appropriateness of reviving the military points system by comparing it to other support policies for veterans. Currently, monetary support policies such as realizing military benefits, granting tax breaks to veterans, and paying unemployment benefits after discharge from the military are being proposed as new support policies to replace the military points system, but these support policies have budgetary problems and are not suitable.
As we have seen, the proposed amendments to the military family points system have sufficiently compensated for the equity issues that made it unconstitutional in the first place. It is not a violation of the equal rights of those who did not serve in the military, but compensation for the disadvantageous treatment received due to the obligation of national defense. It is also a recognition that the skills acquired by veterans while serving in the military are the skills required for public office, not a violation of the right of those who did not serve in the military to hold public office. Therefore, it can be said that the military family points system is a legitimate system that does not have the problem of legitimacy that was previously controversial. In addition, since the monetary level of veterans’ support policies that are currently being proposed as alternative support policies are not realistic due to budgetary problems, the military family points system can be considered the most appropriate veterans’ support policy that can be realistically realized. Therefore, I am in favor of supporting veterans by reviving the military family credit system, which is the most realistically feasible and has the justification of being legally appropriate in a situation where most people recognize the need for a support policy for veterans. However, since the military family credit system has the limitation of benefiting only a small part of veterans who are preparing to become public servants and teachers, I think that the military family credit system should be revived and implemented, but other support policies should be partially modified to fit the reality and implemented together to prepare a systematic support policy so that all veterans can benefit.
