한국 현실에 맞는 통치구조의 개혁에 대한 제언 - 2024-2025 국회의장산하 자문위원회의 경험을 기반으로 -

In the Republic of Korea, the presidential system is considered appropriate. This is because the National Assembly, which should be the venue for discussing and deciding major national affairs, lacks the dialogue and debate that are prerequisites for a parliamentary cabinet system; instead, only ideological confrontation and struggle exist. Due to such backward, parliamentary, and anti-democratic behavior, the public distrusts the National Assembly most among state institutions. Therefore, from the perspective of the collective public will, the majority of people prefer the presidential system. Given that any constitutional amendment finalized through a referendumcannot proceed against the will of the people, this preference must naturally be considered. Furthermore, there is a longing for a new leader stemming from the existing distrust of the parliamentary political sphere. Since parliamentary politics based on dialogue and debate—the essential prerequisite for a parliamentary cabinet system—is absent in our country, the cabinet system is not valid. Rather, it is deemed necessary to make control by the opposition party and the people effective under the presidential system. Ultimately, the chaos observed under the Korean presidential system arises not from the system itself, but rather from the lack of quality in the president as an elected representative and elite, the lack of "frank and honest advice" from the ruling party to the president, and the unconditional opposition of the minority party. These issues are rooted in the undemocratic nature within both ruling and opposition parties and the resulting abuse of nomination powers, as well as the fundamental problems of the representation system itself caused by the single-member constituency system. These are fundamental flaws of the representation system that would persist even if converted to a parliamentary system; therefore, reform must be achieved at this opportunity. To prevent both an Imperial Presidency and an Imperial Congress, rather than simply transferring the current powers of the President or the Assembly to the other, it is first necessary to substantially expand direct democracy to compensate for these representational flaws. Specifically, the introduction of a People's Initiative, the expansion of subjects for referendums, and the broadening of People's Recall for elected officials, including members of the National Assembly, are required. This is also because multi-term presidential systems, parliamentary cabinet systems, or semi-presidential systemsall carry the risk of producing an imperial leader depending on the circumstances. It is a priority to establish effective measures to hold those in power accountable, to impose stricter political and legal responsibilities on them, and to abolish the President's power to grant special pardons to politicians and former presidents. Additionally, it is necessary to prioritize the abolition of the President's immunity from prosecution and the restriction or abolition of the privileges of immunity and non-arrest for lawmakers. Considering that most problems in recent Korean politics stem from structural issues under the single-member constituency system, any reform of the government form lacks validity without reforming the system that fails to accurately reflect the public's will. Even if the authority of the National Assembly is further strengthened, from a political perspective, it is difficult to provide frank advice to the President or control the exercise of power when the ruling party holds the majority. Conversely, in a divided government (ruling-minority/opposition-majority) situation, as shown in the recent emergency martial law incident, the severe confrontation between parties can cause significant disruptions to government functions, making it difficult to regard this as appropriate control. From this perspective, the fundamental problem lies in the abuse of power by the President rather than the presidential system itself. In particular, it is deemed necessary to elevate the quality of politics through judicial reform that ensures fair and thorough oversight of the accountability of those in power, as well as through the improvement of the Political Parties Act and the Election Act aimed at enhancing the qualifications of politicians.