야당에 대한 실질적 통치권한 승인의 유형과 정당성에 관한 연구 - 이른바 야당정부원리의 헌법적 의의에 관한 연구 -

조재현 동아대학교 법학연구소 2019 東亞法學 Vol.- No.83

The idea about government of granting losing political parties the right not just to dissent from and obstruct the efforts of the winning political party, but also to exercise the power to govern as well, is an approach as a means of dividing power among political groups, what this Article calls “government in opposition”. Government in opposition rules a represent a distinctive approach to structuring the separation of powers in democratic system. Government in opposition rules exists for the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. In the legislative branch, losing political coalitions are sometimes given the power to chair standing or temporary committee, are given special powers on a committee even if they do not chair the committee. In several countries, losing political coalitions chair important legislative committee. In Korea, the forms of legislative government in opposition exist. Losing political coalitions also exercise winners’ power in the executive branch. Government in opposition rules also exists for the judical branch. Judical government in opposition rules extend not only to the appointment of individual to the courts but also to the operation of the courts. Government in opposition rules have normative benefits because they result in a more attractive role for losing political coalitions. It is an essential part of democracy that minorities should be adequately represented and losing political coalitions are represented in democratic institutions. Government in opposition rules would also create a more equitable distribution of political power, ensuring that political minorities, so even if government in opposition rules would be a welcome in our constitutional system, there are still some major issues of institutional design that need to be resolved. How mandatory are these rules and what is the exact amount of these rules present and so on. In conclusion, it is desirable that government in opposition rule should be implemented by an informal norm or a normal political process rather than statutory regulation or constitutional provision. And the power that would be available to losing coalition should be negotiated between losing political parties and winning political party in political process. 야당정부원리는 권력의 공유관계를 기초로 한 새로운 권력분립의 모색론이다. 야당정부원리는 선거에서 승리한 정당과 패한 정당, 여당과 야당, 다수와 소수와의 권력의 공유관계에 기초한다. 야당정부원리는 공식적으로 또는비공식적으로 야당에게도 실질적 통치권한을 인정하는 제도이며, 대통령제, 의원내각제 등 정부형태의 제도적 징표에 관계없이 모든 민주주의 형태에서존재할 수 있다. 선거에서 패한 정당에게 승인되는 권한의 성격이 입법권, 행정권, 사법권인가에 따라 각각 야당입법부, 야당행정부, 야당사법부 등의 형태로 존재할 수 있다. 야당정부원리를 채용하는 국가의 입법부에서는 야당에게중요한 위원회의 위원장의 직위나 특별한 권한을 부여한다. 야당행정부는 행정권에서도 야당으로서의 정체성을 유지하면서 여당의 권한을 행사하도록 승인한다. 야당정부원리는 사법부나 법원에도 연장된다. 우리나라의 경우에도국회의 위원회 위원장 자리는 13대 국회 이후로 여야가 합의하여 일정하게배분하고, 야당에게도 일정한 몫이 주어진다. 국회에서 선출하는 헌법재판소재판관 역시 여야의 합의에 의하여 선출함으로써 야당의 권한이 인정된다. 야당정부원리는 민주주의 사회에서 새로운 권력분립적 구상을 위한 접근방법으로 정부형태의 유형이나 선거의 승패에 관계없이 권력 공유적 정부를 지향한다. 소수 정치세력이 건설적 패배자로서의 역할에 충실할 수 있도록 기회를제공하면서, 정치적 교착상태가 발생하는 것을 방지할 수 있다는 규범적 이익을 갖는다. 그렇지만 정치적 정체성을 달리하는 두 집단이 하나의 권력구조에서 통치권을 행사하도록 허용하는 것은 다수의 지배라는 민주주주의적 헌법원리와 갈등관계에 있을 수밖에 없기 때문에 그것의 도입여부나 도입의 범위에는 신중할 수밖에 없다. 헌법규정이나 법적 규율의 형식이 아닌 비공식적규정 또는 헌법적, 정치적 관행에 의해 도입하는 것이 큰 저항이 없다는 점에서 고려할 수 있는 하나의 방법이다.

1960년대 정치세력의 통일논의 전개와 성격

이주봉(Lee, Joo-Bong) 고려사학회 2013 한국사학보 Vol.- No.50

By tracing the changes in the unification theory adopted by the Park Chung-hee government and opposition parties in the 1960s in the aftermath of the May 16th Military Coup of 1961 and connecting the April Resistance of 1960 to the active unification policy of the Park Chung-hee government in the 1970s, this study reveals the characteristics and periodic significance of the unification theory adhered to in the 1960s. Based on the principle of unification through victory over communism, the Park Chung-hee government and the conservative opposition parties agreed to focus on economic development first and unification later. They were also of the same mindset with regards to the holding of a general election under the auspices of the UN. However, cracks began to emerge in the unification theory of the conservative parties following the emergence of a new debate over unification created by the Democratic Socialist Party’s calls for inter-Korean exchanges during the political reorganization process of 1966 that occurred a year prior to the Presidential and National Assembly elections. Increasingly critical of the government’s use of the Anti-Communist Law to control the debate over unification, conservative opposition parties began to call for modifications to the holding of a general election under the auspices of the UN and the establishment of limited inter-Korean exchanges. The government partially modified the notion of holding a general election under the auspices of the UN, and increasingly advocated the gradual reunification theory that would become the norm from the late 1970s onwards. However, the debate over unification amongst political groups during this period clearly exposed the limitations of politics in the 1960s, a period in which the true intention was to grasp political power rather than prepare realistic measures for unification. This study successfully showed a clear link between the unification theory and discussions on unification among political groups in the 1960s and the April Resistance of 1960. Moreover, it also shed light on the intrinsic causes of the Park Chung-hee government’s active unification policy of the 1970s. The Park Chung-hee government’s volte-face in terms of its unification policy in the 1970s was spurred by external changes in the political landscape and the advent of the spirit of detente within a South Korean society that supported the calls for inter-Korean exchanges that began in the late 1960s. Furthermore, the tacit agreement within Korean society regarding the existence of two Koreas and the decline of the significance of a general election under the auspices of the UN during the late 1960s eventually paved the way for the Declaration for Peace and Unification on June 23, 1973. This in turn not only concertized the existence of two Koreas, but also facilitated the North and South’s simultaneous joining of the UN.

1920년대 초 자유주의 지식인들의 정치활동 : 胡適의 ‘努力정치’와 蔡元培의 ‘不合作정치’

김정화(kim Jung-Hwa) 호서사학회 2009 역사와 담론 Vol.0 No.54

China is soaring up in economy after latter half of 20th century, centering around capitalism, the socialism which has the specific character of China was settled within the country in the late of 1990, and now China is the third biggest trading country in the world. The worry that China is faced nowadays is that it can't be governed the country by under the government's direction only. For example it can't be possible to manage the huge economy or foreign trades, or to restrict business activities of companies without establishing a law. Furthermore, it reaches to the difficult situation to deal with venting desire of individuals for the democracy and freedom which accompanies with affluent in economy. I thas been a task to embody the constitutional government and now i tis the urgent problem. At the 15th party convention in 1997, Chinese communist party adopted "administration in the conformi y with the Constitution" as a new policy for governing, and in 2004 the government published the general ideas which arranged concrete plan for embodiment of a constitutional state. For the situation in China in these days, it began to look back positively on the intellectuals who were also a liberalists Hu Shih and Ts'ai Yuan-Pei who endeavored to take root the constitutional government in China since the early 1920s. This paper is focused on the Ts'ai Yuan-Pei, Hu Shih's political ideology and movement of liberalism. In this period it can be said that their political activities can be explained as collaboration. In Declarations of the current situation such as 'Our Political Opinion' and 'A declaration for urging Sun Yat-sen's resigning his public post', Hu Shih prepared drafts and Ts'ai Yuan-Pei supported Hu Shih's idea. They discussed together and were active as leaders. 7th of May 1922, Hu Shih launched a political review 『The endeavor』 and got his stride into criticize the problems within China. The motive for him to came out to political activities as a scholar was to reform the depraved politics of military cliques, and to take a stand against communism which insisted revolution by using violence and solution of the foundation and which attracted concerns of many intellectuals and young students. What he couldn't bear was the way of struggles of classes of Marxism. What he thought about this concept was that it tried to manage the political system of restriction and disapproval by using violence and compelling force. In second issue of 『The endeavor』 he printed 'Our Political Opinion' which suggested liberal political ideology of West for the first time in China, and claimed minimal rights to military cliques. The principle of political idea of western liberalism was a power structure which was equipped with checks and balances within the Constitution. It was also process not to reform fundamentally but to investigate each problems and resolve these specifically. It was an attempt of pragmatism in the politics. Later, based on this opinion, Hu Shih tried constantly to settle the idea of liberal politics in China. Although he took different attitude from Hu Shih, Ts'ai Yuan-Pei was also the representative intellectual who believed liberalism. Compared to Hu Shih's activity, the political activity of Ts'ai Yuan-Pei was not to spread the liberalism itself into China, but to support educational environment on the ground of the nation salvation with education. In the situation of Ts'ai Yuan-Pel, by means of reformism, it could be planned stability in politics, cultivated talented people and upsurged morality in China. Based on this, he intended to develop the country. However when 羅文幹 who joined the ministry which was formed by liberalists, including Hu Shih, who participated in 'Our Political Opinion' was falsely arrested of a bribery scandal, this time Ts'ai Yuan-Pei protested against the depraved government, resigned his post, announced the declaration and left Beijing. In the declaration, he demanded morality of states

1950年代 前半 臺灣自由主義者의 自由主義 摸索

鄭文祥(Chung Moon Sang) 중국근현대사학회 2013 중국근현대사연구 Vol.60 No.-

This paper analyzed editorials related to liberalism posted in magazine Free China and attempted to trace the content of liberalism sought for by liberalists and their activities. Through such tracking, this paper intended to explain that the content of liberalism became systematized to some extent by the mid 1950s and confrontation and antagonism between liberalists and the Nationalist Party became clearer. In the process of exploring liberalism until the mid 1950s, this article paid attention to from 1952 to 1953. The reason is that liberalism started to be systematized from this period and logical grounds for criticism about the Nationalist Party were obtained during this period. The content analyzed in this article is summarized as follows. Liberalists sought for liberalism encompassing socialism by inheriting liberalism in the 1940s. They understood socialism and liberalism as having complementary relationship and established freedom and equality as a task to pursue at the same time. Liberalists did not agree on the priority between freedom and equality but were in common in that they did not regard both were not contrasting with each other. However, even though liberalists had favorable attitudes toward socialism, they could not continuously use the term socialism because of the conceptual ambiguity of the term socialism and political and social reality in which they had to be opposed to communism and resist against Russia. So-called “economic socialization” was a term selected by liberalists to avoid such perplexity. As Taiwan was included in the U.S.’s East Asian anticommunist defense system after the Korean War, internal and external stability of Taiwan was secured. Liberalists advocated so-called “political counteroffensive” and emphasized the purport of winning political democracy, and criticized the Nationalist Party which pursued Party-State system. However, what should be paid attention to is from 1952 to 1953, rather than the Korean War, in liberalism’s process of unfolding. The first reason was that liberalists obtained the ground for assuming not only communism but also the Nationalist Party as the subject of criticism and opposition by putting up “opposition to totalitarianism” with the goal of anti-communism. The second reason was that liberalists started to review in earnest important matters constituting liberalism such as individual freedom, free economy, realization of constitutional government, and defense of the constitution. Liberalists proclaimed that the genuine meaning of liberalism lied in individuals’ freedom and individuals’ freedom should be all rights and all basic freedom. Arguing that political democracy should be based on free economy, they newly emphasized the importance of free economy which they had been on the alert against and criticized in the past. They also started to take notice of the meanings of constitutional government and the constitution as institutional instruments to guarantee smooth operation of the free economic system. Based on such liberalism groped for and asserted leaning on liberalist thought of Hayek, liberalists heightened the level of criticism against the Nationalist Party. They pointed out the Nationalist Party’s management and control policies on the economy as a planned economy and strongly urged implementation of constitutional government. What is noteworthy is that such activities of criticism by liberalists were oriented toward emphasis of the justification of the opposition party. It came from the judgment that the duty and future Taiwan, the matrix of Free China, should take charge of cannot be entrusted to the Nationalist Party any longer which was pursuing one party rule system. It is self-evident that the more the justification of the opposition party among liberalists was stressed, the more obvious their confrontation and rivalry with the Nationalist Party became.

연구논문 : 17대 국회 본회의 표결에 나타난 정당 간 정책연합

김민전 ( Meen Geon Kim ) 한국의회발전연구회 2010 의정연구 Vol.16 No.3

최소승리연합(minimum winning coalition), 최소행위자연합(fewest actor coalition), 최소거리연합(minimum range coalition), 보편연합(universal coalition), 여야축을 중심으로 한 연합(government-opposition coalition) 등 연합에 의해 내각이 구성되곤 하는 의원내각제 국가들인 유럽뿐만 아니라 대통령제 국가인 미국에서도 다양한 연합에 대한 이론이 연구되어 왔다. 이러한 축적된 이론을 바탕으로 17대 국회 본회의 표결의 분석을 통해 우리의 정책연합의 패턴을 고찰하였다. 17대 국회에서 있었던 총 2,188건의 기명표결 중 절반 정도에서는 열린우리당, 한나라당, 민주노동당 간의 보편적 연합이 형성되었으며, 나머지 절반정도에 있어서는 이념적 거리, 혹은 정책적 거리가 가까운 정당끼리 정책연합을 만들었던 것으로 나타나고 있다. 17대 국회 초 여당인 열린우리당이 진보개혁적 정책을 내세울 때에는 민주노동당과의 연합이 자주 이루어졌다. 그러나 17대 국회 중반이후 열린우리당에 대한 국민들의 지지의 낙폭이 커지자 이합집산을 거듭하던 그 후신들은 진보성을 탈색하고 주로 한나라당과 연합을 이루었던 것으로 나타났다. 이렇게 정치상황의 변화에 따라 국회에서의 정책연합이 변할 뿐만 아니라 정책분야에 따라서도 정책연합의 패턴이 일부 변화하는 것으로 나타났다. Various coalition theories-such as minimum winning coalition, fewest actor coalition, minimum range coalition, universal coalition, government-opposition coalition-have been researched in the western academia. Based on these theoretical accomplishment, this paper aims to study the patterns of policy coalitions among the tree parliamentary parties, Uri, GNP, and DLP, by analyzing 2,188 Roll-call votes in the 17th National Assembly. On the half of the votes, the Uri, the GNP and the DLP formed the universal coalitions. The other half of the votes, however, showed the coalition of parties close each other in terms of ideology and policies. In the first half of the 17th N.A., the ruling party, Uri, initiated the progressive reform polices in a coalition with the DLP. When the term of the 17th National Assembly had passed the half way point, however, the people`s support started leaving the ruling party, Uri Party. As a result, the National Assembly members of the ruling party lost the direction and their liberalism, and made a coalition with the Grand National Party.

한국 국회의원의 다차원 정책공간 분석

구본상(Bon Sang Koo),최준영(Jun Young Choi),김준석(Junseok Kim) 한국정당학회 2016 한국정당학회보 Vol.15 No.3

본 연구는 본회의 표결 결과 및 공간모형에 근거하여 의원들의 정책 공간상 최적점(ideal points)을 추정하는 W-NOMINATE 방식을 사용하여 한국 국회의 경우에도 하나의 차원으로 환원된 최적점을 이념이라고 간주할 수 있는지 제17대부터 제19대 국회의원 분석을 통해 검증해보는 것을 주된 목적으로 한다. 미국 의회의 경우 정책 공간상 차원이 하나의 차원으로 수렴되며, 그 차원은 이념 차원이라 간주할 수 있다는 점이 밝혀진 바 있다. 그러나 본 연구는 한국의 경우 정책 공간상 다차원이 존재하고 이것을 하나의 차원으로 환원하기 어렵다는 점을 확인하였다. 따라서 한국의 경우 W-NOMINATE 일차원을 단순히 이념 차원이라 부르기 어려우며, 각각의 차원이 무엇을 의미하는지 규명해야 할 필요성이 제기된다. 이에 본 연구는 정당의 중요성을 고려한 위계 다차원 IRT 모형과 소수의 이념정당 소속 의원들의 최적점을 차원규명의 단서로 활용하여, 한국 국회에는 이념 차원보다는 ‘여야 대립 차원(governmentopposition dimension)’이 더 중요한 차원으로 존재하고 있음을 밝혔다. 그러나 제17 ․ 18대 국회와 비교해 제19대 국회의 경우 유의미한 잠재 차원이 2개에 그치고 W-NOMINATE를 통해 추정된 최적점이 위계 IRT 모형을 통해 추정된 값이나 서베이를 통해 측정된 이념지수와도 상당히 높은 상관관계를 가진다는 점에서, 제19대 국회의 W-NOMINATE 1차원 추정치는 의원들의 이념변수로 사용할 수 있다는 점이 확인되었다. We aim to test the validity of the first dimension W-NOMINATE estimates as ideology in the Korean National Assembly (KNA). For this purpose, we analyze the roll call data from the 17th to the 19th KNA. A multidimensional policy space can be effectively reduced onto a unidimensional space in the U.S. Congress, and thus ideal points on the simple continuum can be used as ideology. In contrast, due to multidimensionality Korean legislators’ ideal points are not properly reduced to a unidimensional space. Thus, we address the need for specifying each dimension. By employing hierarchical multidimensional IRT models considering the significance of political parties and ideal points of members who belong to minor, but strongly ideological parties as clues, we show that the government-opposition dimension is a primary dimension to Korean legislators. We also confirm the validity of first dimension W-NOMINATE estimates as ideology only in the 19th KNA by showing that (1) it has only two significant latent dimensions, which is distinguished from the 17th and the 18th KNA, and (2) W-NOMINATE estimates are highly associated with survey-based estimates as well as ideal point estimates by hierarchical multidimensional IRT models.

17대 국회 본회의 표결에 나타난 정당 간 정책연합

김민전 한국의회발전연구회 2010 의정연구 Vol.16 No.3

Various coalition theories-such as minimum winning coalition, fewest actor coalition, minimum range coalition, universal coalition, government-opposition coalition-have been researched in the western academia. Based on these theoretical accomplishment, this paper aims to study the patterns of policy coalitions among the tree parliamentary parties, Uri, GNP, and DLP, by analyzing 2,188 Roll-call votes in the 17th National Assembly. On the half of the votes, the Uri, the GNP and the DLP formed the universal coalitions. The other half of the votes, however, showed the coalition of parties close each other in terms of ideology and policies. In the first half of the 17th N.A., the ruling party, Uri, initiated the progressive reform polices in a coalition with the DLP. When the term of the 17th National Assembly had passed the half way point, however, the people’s support started leaving the ruling party, Uri Party. As a result, the National Assembly members of the ruling party lost the direction and their liberalism, and made a coalition with the Grand National Party. 최소승리연합(minimum winning coalition), 최소행위자연합(fewest actor coalition), 최소거리연합(minimum range coalition), 보편연합(universal coalition), 여야축을 중심으로 한 연합(government-opposition coalition) 등 연합에 의해 내각이 구성되곤 하는 의원내각제 국가들인 유럽뿐만 아니라 대통령제 국가인 미국에서도 다양한 연합에 대한 이론이 연구되어 왔다. 이러한 축적된 이론을 바탕으로 17대 국회 본회의 표결의 분석을 통해 우리의 정책연합의 패턴을 고찰하였다. 17대 국회에서 있었던 총 2,188건의 기명표결 중 절반 정도에서는 열린우리당, 한나라당, 민주노동당 간의 보편적 연합이 형성되었으며, 나머지 절반정도에 있어서는 이념적 거리, 혹은 정책적 거리가 가까운 정당끼리 정책연합을 만들었던 것으로 나타나고 있다. 17대 국회 초 여당인 열린우리당이 진보개혁적 정책을 내세울 때에는 민주노동당과의 연합이 자주 이루어졌다. 그러나 17대 국회 중반 이후 열린우리당에 대한 국민들의 지지의 낙폭이 커지자 이합집산을 거듭하던 그 후신들은 진보성을 탈색하고 주로 한나라당과 연합을 이루었던 것으로 나타났다. 이렇게 정치상황의 변화에 따라 국회에서의 정책연합이 변할 뿐만 아니라 정책분야에 따라서도 정책연합의 패턴이 일부 변화하는 것으로 나타났다.

SRF 입지결정 및 관련 지역사회 이슈 연구: 포항시 사례를 중심으로

안병국,구자문 한국도시행정학회 2023 도시 행정 학보 Vol.36 No.2

This paper attempted to diagnose and analyze the SRF site selection process and related issues in Pohang City and propose solutions. Currently, the SRF is in operation, but disputes with nearby residents have not been resolved. The disputes started in the process of site selection, but now the focus is on the lowered chimney height due to the restrictions of the nearby military airfield. There is no progress in realistic dialogue for a solution, and there is no mediator. Due to the garbage generation and treatment conditions in Pohang, it is difficult to stop operation of the SRF, and to replace it with a new SRF facility because of a large technical and cost burdens. Also, the option to relocate SRF to a new site would be unrealistic because it would require high cost and long time period. The most optimal solution in the current situation would be to maintain and manage the SRF facility strictly to show that ground air pollution could be minimized even with the current chimney height with the blower running, and raise awareness among nearby residents that the SRF being safe. Citizens' negative response based on NIMBY should not be criticized even if it is a public project. The government should exercise political leadership and solve these problems through dialogue and persuasion, preferably through the smooth operation of local governance. To accomplish the goals, following conditions would be requested: consistent leadership and the existence of mediators, institutionalization of citizen participation, compensation for residents, objective and fair responses from local governments and the media, and provision of undistorted information. 본 논문은 포항 SRF 입지선정과정 및 관련 이슈들을 진단 및 분석하고 해결방안을 제시하고자 했다. 현재 SRF는 가동되고 있지만 주민들과 마찰은 해결되지 못하고 있다. 그 마찰은 입지선정에서부터 시작되었지만 현재는 인근 군비행장의 고도제한으로 낮아진 굴뚝의 높이에 초점이 맞추어져 있다. 현재 이 갈등의 해결을 위한 현실적인 대화도 진전이 없고, 중재자도 제대로 존재하지 않는다. 하지만 포항시 쓰레기 발생 및 처리 여건상 SRF의 가동중지는 어렵고, 새로운 시설로 대체하기도 기술적・비용적 문제가 크며, 새로운 부지를 찾는 것 역시 높은 비용과 긴 시간이 필요하기에 현실성이 낮다고 본다. 현재 상황에서 가장 최적의 해결방안은 SRF의 유지와 관리를 엄격히 하며, 현재 굴뚝의 높이로도 송풍기의 가동과 함께 지표면의 대기오염을 최소화할 수 있음을 보여주며 인근 주민들에게 SRF가 안전하다는 인식을 심어주는 것이다. 시민들의 NIMBY에 바탕을 둔 부정적인 대응은 공공을 위한 사업이라 하더라도 욕할 수 없고, 정부로서는 리더쉽을 발휘하고 대화와 설득을 통해, 그리고 바람직하게는 로컬 거버넌스의 원활한 작동을 통해 이 문제들을 해결해 나가야 할 것이다. 이를 위해 일관성 있는 리더쉽과 중재자의 존재, 주민참여제도화, 주민보상, 지자체와 언론들의 객관적이며 공정한 대응, 왜곡되지 않은 정보제공 등이 필요하다고 본다.

민주화 이후 당정협의의 문제점과 제도적 대안

가상준 ( Sang Joon Ka ),안순철 ( Soon Cheol An ) 서울대학교 한국정치연구소 2012 韓國 政治 硏究 Vol.21 No.2

본 연구는 민주화 이후 역대 정부의 국회와 행정부 간 관계를 당정협의 운영이라는 측면을 통해 살펴봄으로써 당정협의로 인해 역대 정부에서 부각된 공통적인 문제점은 무엇이었는지 알아보며, 문제점 해결을 위해 당정협의가 어떻게 운영되어야 하는지 제도적 대안을 모색해 보는 것을 목적으로 한다. 민주화 이후 역대 정부별 당정협의를 살펴보면 당정협의가 전반적으로 원활하게 운영되지 못했다는 결론을 얻을 수 있다. 여기에 대한 책임은 대통령과 여당 모두에게 있다고 할 수 있다. 행정부의 입장에서는 당정협의가 국회통과를 위해 필요한 과정이지만 절실하지 않았고, 정당의 입장에서 보면 당정협의는 정부 정책결정과정에 참여하는 기회였지만 주도권을 갖기 어려웠다. 이러한 결과들은 청와대와 행정부가 당정협의를 통해 여당과 국회를 통제하고 있으며 이로 인해 국회의 입법기능은 약해지고 정당 간 갈등만 초래하고 있다는 당정협의에 대한 부정적인 견해를 뒷받침하는 것이다. 대통령과 행정부가 국회와 정당을 국정파트너로 생각하고 이들의 협조를 통한 정책 추진을 위해서는 기존 당정협의 제도에서 과감히 벗어나야 한다. 이를 위해 현재의 당정협의 후 국회 내 정당 간 논의라는 이차적 구조를 행정부, 여당과 야당 간 협의라는 일차적 구조로 바꾸어 정부와 여당의 정책협의 및 조정을 위한 논의에 야당을 포함시키며 이를 국회 상임위원회 차원에서 협의가 이루어지도록 하는 방안을 제안한다. After the democratization there have been many problems caused by inefficient relationship between the legislative and the administration in terms of the Party- Government Policy Coordination System. This study aims at examining the shared problems of each government, seeking for institutional alternative system. It is found that the Party-Government Policy Coordination Systems of all governments have not been managed well as designed originally, and both the President and the ruling party have been responsible for the negative results. The followings are thought to be the purport of the system: The administration needs to get the support from the National Assembly to enact the laws concerned. Meanwhile, the governmental party can participate in policy-making process through Party-Government Policy Coordination System. Regrettably, the results support for a negative view that the Party-Government Policy Coordination System has been used as the means for the Blue House and the executive branch to manipulate not only the ruling party but also the National Assembly, which has been weakening the legislation function of the National Assembly, causing severe conflicts between ruling and opposite parties in the National Assembly. It is recommended that the Party-Government Policy Coordination System to be redesigned for having the Blue House and the executive branch to regard the National Assembly including the opposite parties as the partner of state affair. For that purpose, it is imperative that the current system needs to be overhauled and replaced by a new system where the opposite party is to be included in the Party-Government Policy Coordination System and the venue for that dialogue shall be the Standing Committees of the National Assembly concerned.

제21대 국회 의원안의 성공요인: 단점-분점 시기 당적의 영향력 차이

전진영 한국의회발전연구회 2024 의정연구 Vol.30 No.2

이 연구는 제21대 국회에서 발의된 총 23,655건의 의원안을 대상으로 입법 성공 요인을 분석하고, 단점정부에서 분점정부로 바뀐 상황에 따라 당적 요인의 영향력 변화를 검증하였다. 제21대 국회 전반기는 더불어민주당이 압도적 과반의석으로 국회와 행정부를 모두 지배하는 단점정부였으나, 2022년 실시된 대선에서 국민의힘이 승리하면서 후반기는 분점정부로 바뀌었다. 이 연구는 이 점에 주목하여 제21대 국회를 전체 시기뿐만 아니라 단점정부 시기, 분점정부 시기 등으로 구분하여 다수당과 여당이 의원안 가결에 미치는 영향력을 검증하였다. 분석결과 제21대 국회 전체 시기에는 더불어민주당 의원안과 국민의힘 의원안이 가결될 가능성에 유의미한 차이가 없었다. 그러나 단점정부 시기에는 다수당이자 여당인 더불어민주당 의원안이 가결될 확률이 다른 정당들보다 높았다. 분점정부 시기에는 역으로 국민의힘 의원안이 민주당 의원안에 비해서 가결될 확률이 2.1배나 높게 나타났다. 그 밖의 변수로 법안의 소관위원회 위원장이 제안한 법안은 가결될 확률이 높았고, 세입예산안 부수법률안과 잔여임기가 많은 법안이 가결될 가능성이 높았다. 이와 같은 연구결과는 우리나라 국회의 입법과정에서 다수당・소수당 요인뿐만 아니라 여당・야당 요인도 중요한 의미를 갖는다는 점을 입증한다. 분점정부 상황에서 소수당인 집권여당의 영향력은 한국 정치에서 입법과정에 대한 대통령의 영향력과 함께 협의주의적 국회의사결정의 원칙으로 설명될 수 있다. 다만 의원안 입법성공에 미치는 여당의 영향력이 제22대 국회 전반기처럼 대통령 임기 중반에 총선패배로 조성된 분점정부에서도 동일하게 나타날지에 대해서는 후속 연구에서 검증될 필요가 있다. 대통령의 입법의제 주도권은 대선 승리로 조성된 분점정부에서 훨씬 강할 것으로 기대되기 때문이다. This study analyzes the factors influencing legislative success for a total of 23,655 proposals submitted during the 21st National Assembly. The first half of the 21st National Assembly was characterized by a unified government with the Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) controlling both the legislature and the executive branch. In contrast, the latter half experienced a divided government after the People Power Party (PPP) won the presidential election. Focusing on these distinctions, the study divides the 21st National Assembly into three periods: the entire period, the unified government period, and the divided government period. The influence of the majority party and the ruling party on the passage of legislative proposals was examined during these periods. The analysis revealed no significant difference in the probability of passage between proposals from the DPK and PPP during the entire period. However, during the unified government period, proposals from the DPK, the majority and ruling party, had a higher probability of being passed compared to those from other parties. Conversely, during the divided government period, proposals from the PPP were 2.1 times more likely to be passed than those from the DPK. Additionally, proposals sponsored by the chair of the relevant committee had a higher likelihood of passage, and those associated with supplementary budget laws and proposals with a longer remaining term were more likely to be passed. These findings demonstrate that both majority/minority party status and ruling/opposition party status hold significant importance in the legislative process. However, it remains to be examined in future research whether a divided government formed due to a ruling party's defeat in midterm elections, as seen in the first half of the 22nd National Assembly, can positively influence the success of legislative proposals as effectively as a divided government formed through a presidential victory, as observed in the latter half of the 21st National Assembly.