현대 대의민주주의 한계에 대한 헌법적 고찰 ― 참여와 숙의민주주의 보완을 중심으로

In this study, it was confirmed that the crisis of representative democracy appears in the political reality of Korea, where representative democracy does not properly play a role in raising the empirically confirmed people's will to constitutional principles, and the representatives elected by the people are not exercising it for the benefit of the entire people. Based on this, a discourse on revising and supplementing representative democracy was presented, pointing out the problems in which national sovereignty will be punished to some extent, the party binding properties of representatives, the dominant position of the majority rule, and the populist tendency. In this study, the democratic legitimacy of the eligibility of representative representatives constituting the phenomena and limitations of modern representative democracy was analyzed, and the phenomenological issues that partially lost the role of conflict mediators and were bound to political parties and minority interest groups were reviewed to derive the following discussions on the constitutional revision and supplementation of the current limits of representative democracy through the principles of participation and deliberative democracy. First, the free delegation of representative democratic representatives means freedom from the binding of the state and society, and unlike individual citizens' "basic liberal rights" protected from inconvenient interference and infringement by the state, it was confirmed that it is constitutional to guarantee independence from individuals and interest groups as a concept of opposition to "command delegation" from voters and stakeholders. To compensate for the weakening of representative eligibility and democratic legitimacy, representatives must perform their duties in the interests of the entire people, not in a relationship of imperative and binding delegation, which should be clearly recognized as being in the constitutional basic principles of the composition and operation of the representative system. The goal of performing their duties should be to make adjustments between conflicting national interests in the National Assembly, which is an agreement of individual representatives representing partial interests, and the final public interest is found in the process. Second, the representative democratic system, which realizes the principle of national sovereignty through representatives of the people elected by the electoral system, is divided into various interests and is expected to play the role of representatives in mediating internal and external conflicts. Therefore, the representative should faithfully carry out the political decision-making process that is not directly handled by all citizens without being biased toward party politics, and through this, the role of conflict mediators should be focused so that direct political efficacy of citizens is not lost. Third, it was suggested that citizens who witnessed and recognized real problems, political, and social conflicts need deliberative democracy through self-participation and public debate rather than relying on and binding party politics and leaving the role of conflict mediators to representatives who are partially disfigured. To this end, it was emphasized that ensuring open nomination, which delays the sound development of political parties and secures transparency in the nomination system that undermines the autonomy of members, could lead to party reform that strengthens the representative democracy system. Fourth, it is essential to ask opinions by majority vote and accept the results of the results, but since majority rule universalism cannot always be asserted to secure legitimacy, it is necessary to precede a debate and public debate process that goes through deliberation and deliberation. This can prevent citizens and voters from simply becoming parts and mechanisms for election mobilization rather than subjects who give democratic legitimacy and exercise sovereignty in representative democracy, and it can also be used as a complementary principle to increase access to state power by placing the minimum requirements of minorities or the weak at the base of the discussion in the majority rule. By synthesizing the above discussion, it is expected that efforts to highlight the existence of a dynamic civil society through civic monitoring and deliberation, raising the issue of "fairness" that prevents populist tendencies based on support and voter-centeredness and restores the relative deprivation of marginalized civil voters, will work as a principle to revise and supplement representative democracy under the constitution.