정부형태와 협치: 한국의 경험과 가능성

Continuous interactions between political leaders are essential for Constitutional norms to be realized in the political reality. Comprehensive governance is not merely a political slogan. Rather it defines the political process. Especially in cases of divided government, in which the head of the executive branch is affiliated with one party while another party forms the majority in the legislative branch, comprehensive governance is inevitable. The concept of comprehensive governance is dependent upon how power is separated and what kind of government is adopted in a specific nation. In principle, comprehensive governance refers to a system where political institutions share or divide powers. The specific allocation of such powers will vary according to the form of government. Separation of powers is strictly adhered to in a presidential system, while the separation is relaxed in a parliamentary system, and the dual government system(semi-presidential system) situated in between. Studies show that such difference is reflected in how the power is shared. In the case of Republic of Korea(‘Korea’), the idea of political institutions sharing powers has seldom being fulfilled. Power was concentrated to the President and the National Assembly was dominated by members of the President's party. Yet as criticism arose to the imperial presidency and instances of divided government frequently occurred, comprehensive governance has become an issue garnering interest. Through my earlier publications, I have repeatedly emphasized the importance of interpreting the Constitution in a comprehensive manner in order to prepare for a political future that Korea has not yet encountered. While it is true that power has been concentrated to the President and not much is expected to change in the immediate future, elements of a parliamentary system and semi-presidential system are included in the 1987 Constitution. Thus, the text of the Constitution is prepared to deal with a divided government in its pure form, a situation in which a single, united opposition party wins a majority of seats in the legislature. The articles of the Constitution which lay out the check and balance between the legislative and the executive branches will be given new meanings in such context. Unless the constitution is radically amended to adopt the presidential system of the United States, Korean politics in a divided government will get to resemble a semi-presidential system under the current Constitution. The unfortunate experiences of the Second Republic(1960~1961) indicate that there will be difficulties in applying the parliamentary system in the Korean political climate. While there is this significant need to address the future, not much has been done in Korea to deepen our understanding of the semi-presidential system. A comparative research of the semi-presidential system of other nations will be meaningful to cope with such deficiencies. Further researches to prepare for future political turbulence does not mean that a semi-presidential system is the most desirable form of government for Korea. That is a topic to be dealt with at another occasion. Finally, I would like to mention the electoral reforms that are being discussed under the Moon Jae-in administration. The necessity of a comprehensive governance in a nation is closely related to the nation's electoral system and the political party system. According to Professors Duverger and Vedel, proportional representation system is rich in theory but unrealistic in application and it is likely to result in a multi-party system in which parties are mutually independent. Majority runoff system provides clever ideas but negative consequences are rendered and it leads to a moderated multi-party system where parties form a coalition. First-past-the-post system lacks theoretical basis but is effective and it gives rise to a two-party system. Under the current Korean electoral system, there are two ways in which members of the National Assembly can get elected. Among the 300 members, 253 are elected in single-seat constituencies with a first-past-the-post system, while 47 are elected by proportional representation. Some scholars and politicians are advocating the adoption of the German mixed-member proportional system. However, it must be taken into account, if Korea adopts the German system it will be virtually impossible for a single party to win a majority of seats in the legislature. It should be duly noted while European states adopt a proportional system to protect the rights of the minority, United Kingdom and the United States manage a stable and flourishing democracy through the first-past-the-post system. While the proportional system is ideal in that the will of the people is reflected in the allocation of seats in the legislature, it has its shortcomings. Ensuring a stable legislature through a party constituting a comfortable majority of the seats will be hard to realize.