정부형태와 협치: 한국의 경험과 가능성 (Comprehensive Governance: Korean Perspectives)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국공법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 공법연구 / 47권 / 2호 / 67 ~ 111페이지
· 저자명 : 성낙인

초록

헌법규범과 헌법현실이 작동하는 과정에서 정치 지도자 사이에는 끊임없이 대화가 이루어져야 한다. 따라서 정치과정은 곧 협치(協治) 그 자체라고 할 수 있다. 특히 정부와 의회다수파의 분리, 이질적인 의회다수파의 형성에 따른 정치과정의 작동은 협치가 불가피한 전형적인 경우이다. 협치의 개념이나 논의의 방향은 국가형태, 권력분립, 정부형태에 따라서 근본적으로 달라질 수 있다. 협치란 일응 국가의 통치권력을 나누어 가지는 정치 내지 통치로 이해할 수 있다. 그 나누어 가지는 권력은 제도적으로 권력분립이 엄격한 대통령제와 권력분립이 약화된 의원내각제, 그 중간에 위치한 이원정부제(반대통령제)에 따라서 달라질 수 있다.
한국의 정치과정에서 협치가 제대로 구현되지 아니하였다. 대통령제 내지 대통령중심제로 작동되어 오면서 심지어 제왕적 대통령제적인 경향이 일반화되어 있다. 그러나 5년 단임의 대통령과 4년 임기의 국회다수파의 일치와 불일치에 따라서 다양한 헌정사적 변용이 전개될 수밖에 없다. 협치가 불기피한 상황은 얼마든지 연출될 수 있다. 현행 대한민국 헌법에서 작동될 수 있는 다양한 헌정현실을 염두에 두고 이에 대한 근본적 성찰이 필요한 이유이다. 현행헌법은 대통령제의 요소와 의원내각제의 요소를 혼합하고 있으므로 이원정부제적이라는 평가가 불가능한 것은 아니다. 대통령 재임중 국회의원총선거에서 단일야당이 승리한다면, 헌법규범의 엄격한 재해석이 요망된다. 특히 그 동안 잠자고 있던 국회다수파의 정부견제권은 실질적 권한으로 작동할 수 있을 것이다. 여소야대 상황이 전개되면 이원정부제적인 운용은 불가피하다. 그럼에도 불구하고 이원정부제에 대한 정확한 자리 매김은 여전히 미흡한 실정이다. 이원정부제가 한국에서 현실적으로 바람직한 정부형태인가의 문제와는 전혀 별개의 사안이다. 국민적 정당성을 공유하는 양축인 대통령과 의회다수파의 협치 없이는 헌법상 정치제도의 정상적인 작동은 불가능하다다.
근래 협치 화두와 더불어 선거제도 개혁이 논쟁 중이다. 현행 선거 제도는 소선거구 상대적 다수대표제에 비례대표제 의원을 일부 가미한다. 득표율에 따른 선거제도로 선호되는 독일식 선거제도는 혼합선거제라고 하지만 사실상 비례대표제에 가깝다. 한국에서 이 제도를 채택하면 특정 정당이 국회 다수파를 점하기는 사실상 불가능하고 정부의 안정을 구현할 수 없다.

영어초록

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.

참고자료

· 없음