대통령 개헌안에 대한 비판적 고찰 ― 정부형태 및 선거주기를 중심으로 ―

The goal of the constitutional amendment is how well the public can monitor and control the president and the National Assembly. Elections are the most effective means of checking the delegates, but the current method is limiting. Election campaigns have failed to fully exercise their capacity as a means of control because of the electoral cycle that stems from the discrepancy between the five-year presidential term and the four-year term of the National Assembly. On the contrary, the president is under strong control of the National Assembly and the possibility of checking the president is reduced. The National Assembly elections should be held every two years so that the public can check the president and the National Assembly more strongly and change dynamics in the National Assembly. To suggest specific measures, it is desirable to change the presidential term to a four-year, half of the lawmakers from early elections in office, and the other half from mid-term elections. This will give the public the opportunity to conduct an interim evaluation of the president and the National Assembly. They may be assessed every two years and may be rewarded or punished. There may be criticism that elections are frequent, but if parliamentary elections are integrated with local elections, they are held every two years. The two parties failed to reach an agreement, as politicians argued for a semi-presidentialism or a four-year term presidentialism as a means of improving the current constitution. While adopting a four-year term as president, it is necessary to consider whether the National Assembly should have the right to recommend a prime minister. If the opposition party wins every two years, it will play an active role in the nomination of prime minister.