광복 80주년과 국무총리제도의 재조명: 한국형 대통령제를 향한 제도적 방안

Since liberation, the Republic of Korea has achieved rapid growth over the past eighty years. During this period, the country experienced repeated cycles of progress and setback. These processes shaped Korea’s constitutional history. As the authoritarian era declined, negative evaluations of past institutions became common. The prime ministership was no exception. Expressions such as “a human shield prime minister” or “a reading-aloud prime minister” became widespread. These terms reflected the view that the prime minister merely absorbed public criticism aimed at the president. They also suggested that the office lacked substantive authority. As a result, calls for abolishing the prime ministership emerged. Nevertheless, the office of prime minister has existed almost continuously since the 1948 Constitution. It was absent for only about five years and seven months. In some periods, the system was operated in ways that failed to meet its original purpose. Yet changes in the relationship between the president and the National Assembly altered this dynamic. Compared to the authoritarian era, the prime minister’s role expanded. The practical standing of the office also improved. Although problems and limitations remain, Korea has accumulated substantial experience in operating the system. For this reason, reform and reorganization are more appropriate than abolition. The Constitution guarantees certain powers and functions of the prime minister. However, practices from the authoritarian period still persist. At the same time, stronger parliamentary oversight has constrained presidential appointment power. Replacing a prime minister has therefore become more difficult. In some administrations, presidents delegated significant authority to prime ministers. These cases produced visible policy outcomes. Direct presidential control over all areas of governance has reached its limits. A division of responsibilities between the president and the prime minister has become unavoidable. The growing influence of the National Assembly has further changed the political environment. Presidents from minority parties now face much harsher governing conditions. The experience of the past three years illustrates this clearly. Under divided government, impeachment motions and removals from office occurred in succession. A single-centered power structure may improve efficiency in the short term. Over time, however, it weakens institutional balance. It also destabilizes the overall system of government. This model is no longer sustainable. State governance should rely on institutions and systems, not on the capacity of a single leader. Periods in which the president and prime minister shared governing responsibilities show that power-sharing can be effective. In several cases, it helped the state overcome national crises. This experience supports the need to divide key powers. Authority over personnel and budgetary matters should be shared with the prime minister. Political coordination mechanisms are also essential. They should aim to reduce conflict between the president and the prime minister. One possible option is to elect half of the National Assembly every two years. Coalition governments could then be formed based on parliamentary election outcomes. Finally, proposals associated with a decentralized presidential system require careful review. These include legislative dissolution and votes of no confidence. After more than seventy years of experience, the prime ministership should be redesigned. It should be aligned with a Korean-style presidential system.