미국은 얼마나 민주적인가: 로버트 달(Robert A. Dahl)의 미국 헌법 비판 검토

Abstract

2000 년 미국의 대통령 선거는 우여곡절 끝에 일반투표에서 최다득표를 한 후보가 선거인단 투표를 통해서 패배하는 결과를 보여주었다. 동일한 현상은 과거에도 이미 3번이나 되풀이 된 바 있다. 우리는 문제의 초점을 확대하여 다음과 같은 의문을 제기할 수 있다. 미국의 헌법은 문제가 없는가? 미국 민주주의는 과연 모범적이라고 말할 수 있는가? 예일대학의 석좌교수인 로버트 달은 이 점에 대해서 매우 비판적인 견해를 취한다. 그는 미국 국민이 미국 헌법에 대해서 진지하게 자신의 의사를 표출할 수 기회를 가져본 적이 있는가?" 라고 반문한다. 달에 의하면 미국 헌법에 대한 종교적 숭배의 분위기는 극복되어야하며 미국민주주의는 2류급에 불과활지도 모른다. 달이 생각하는 미국 헌법의 가장 큰 결함은 지리적 소수가 정치적 평등의 이념을 위반하며 다수 국민의 의사를 좌절시키는 정치제도에 있다. 더 구체적으로 말한다면 상원의 비합리적 구조와 대통령 선거인단제의 문제이다. 달은 아렌트 레이파트 (Arendt Lì jphart)의 분석틀을 원용하여 미국 민주주의는 왜곡된 방식으로 합의제 모델 (consensus modell 올 수용하는데 심각한문제가 있다고 결론을 내린다.

The 2000 presidential election in America showed a result of how a candidate who obtained a majority in the popular vote could lose the electoral college vote after going through many complications. A similar phenomenon has already been witnessed 3 times in the past. Therefore, we can put forward the following question by expanding on the issue of this focus. Are there any flaws in the American constitution? Can we actually say that American democracy is a model example? Robert Dahl, the Sterling Professor Emeritus at Yale University takes a very critical view of this issue. He poses the question, "How democratic is the American Constitution?" and just how much the American people have had a serious democratic chance to express their opinions about the American constitution. According to Dahl, the religious and almost reverent atmosphere surrounding the American constitution should be overcome and that the level of American democracy is only second best. The biggest flaw in the American constitution that Dahl conceives is in the political system where a few geologically chosen violates the ideology of equality and sets back the opinions of the majority of the people back. More specifically, the issues lie in the illogical structure in the senate and the presidential electoral system. Dahl uses the analysis carried out by Arendt Lijphart and concludes that there is a serious problem in adopting the consensus model distortedly. Dahl's assertion can be summarized wholly into a criticism of the two traditions in the American constitution: Republicanismand Federalism. Therefore, the refutation against Dahl's assertion lies in emphasizing once again the original significance of Republicanism and Federalism. Dahl's criticism against the tradition of Republican traditions of the American constitution is persuasive from the viewpoint of modem democracy and various scholars in the field have already suggested similar issues. However, as Dahl's criticism against Federalism is in actual fact an endorsement of the Unitarian system, it is a difficult logic to follow in light of the special characteristics of American political history. The third logic of the criticism is the fact that Dahl shows several inconsistencies of criticizing the majority democracy while heading in the direction of the majority democracy. He also appears to be supporting the consensus democracy while rejecting it at the same time. If a comment were to be made in regard to the 3rd criticism, this author would say that the root of the problem springs from Dahl's theory which independently analyzes the fundamentalism of the consensus democracy. According to Lijphart, the consensus democracy is a system that allows an over representation of the minority to protect the rights of the minority. However, Dahl's basic philosophy ensures only the share which corresponds with the minority and does not permit any other additional exertions. In other words, Dahl does not allow room for over representation of the minority. Therefore, Dahl seems to be supporting the consensus system within his own definition but from a different point of view, it is closer to the logic of the majority democracy.