현행 대통령제에 관한 몇 가지 생각 -우리 헌정사의 경험을 반추하면서-

Abstract

Based on the constitutional law revised in 1987, Koreans have already

experienced three elections for the presidents. As time's over, however,

some arguments against the present presidential government system are

emerging. In this study, I contradict those arguments from the standpoint

of constitutionalism. Then I clarify that the present system is appropriate.

1. Among the arguments against the present system, the first one

concerns the government system itself. They insist that the parliamentary

government is more democratic than the presidential one. So, as they

insist, we should choose the parliamentary government system. However, I

point out the aristocratic feature of the parliamentary one. Indeed, the

major party governs both executive and legislature in the parliamentary

one. These two features ― aristocraticism and lack of checks and

balances ― prove that the parliamentary one is not so democratic as they

maintain.

2. Next, they raise some questions on the present system: Why don't

we have the final ballot in the election for the president? Why don't we

change the presidency rule from 5-year-one-term to 4-year-two-terms?

Why don't we have the vice president as an acting president? I suppose

dangerous possibilities caused by three situations. (i) If we have the final

ballot in the election for the president, the cost for the election rises.

Consequently the economic burden gets heavier than before. In addition to...