대표민주주의에서의 정당과 자유위임의 관계에 관한 연구: 자유위임의 역사적 의미를 중심으로

This paper discusses the representative system based on the premise that Article 1, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution is the constitutional principle for the representative system. Representatives elected by the people participate in the national decision-making process where diverse and heterogeneous interests coexist and conflict. If the people are not connected on a daily basis with the representatives who exercise such important powers, there is a risk that the popular sovereignty declared in Article 1, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution will become meaningless. Therefore, Article 46, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, which governs the relationship between the people and representatives, also needs to be interpreted in accordance with the Article 1, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution. This paper examines the relationship between political parties and free mandate in representative democracy from the above perspective. To begin with, I present an interpretation of Article 46, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, which states, “Members of the National Assembly shall give preference to national interests and shall perform their duties in accordance with conscience” by examining two different perspectives on the relationship between individual interests and common interests. Furthermore, I examine how France and the United States in the 18th-century differed in their understanding of free mandate, and how this influenced their understanding of political parties by examining their history by which free mandate was accepted. Finally, I examine the current discussions by examining the decisions of the Constitutional Court. I point out that the discussion is limited to the 18th-century French context, and examine how the critical perspective on political parties in our constitutional history has influenced the discussion on the free mandate. Through the above discussion, I examine the role of political parties in democratically checking and supplementing free mandate.