The 'Austrian-style Dual Executive System' Agreed Upon by the National Assembly's Constitutional Amendment Special Committee [Constitutional Amendment, Connecting the Future]

When discussions about constitutional amendments were gaining momentum in Korea, the country that drew attention was Austria. The National Assembly's Special Committee on Constitutional Amendment announced in 2017 that it had effectively agreed to transition to the "Austrian-style dual executive system." Austria adopts a dual executive system where the president and the prime minister are respectively responsible for foreign and domestic affairs. The dual executive system, represented by the "semi-presidential system" and the "semi-parliamentary system," is reviewed every time constitutional amendment discussions take place in Korea.

The Austrian president exercises comprehensive powers, including the appointment of the prime minister and ministers, the authority to dissolve the parliament, command of the federal army, emergency decree powers, and the appointment of the president of the Federal Constitutional Court. However, despite these strong constitutional powers, the president has shown a passive or reserved approach to exercising actual authority. In fact, since World War II, Austrian presidents have not exercised their powers such as cabinet formation or the dissolution of parliament.

The president has conventionally taken on a symbolic role as the head of state. This dual system of president and prime minister has led to positive outcomes by avoiding conflicts and confrontations between the two and establishing a consensus-based democracy centered on the prime minister.

원본보기 아이콘

Austria initially adopted a typical parliamentary system in its constitution first enacted in 1920. At that time, the president existed only nominally. After the collapse of the Habsburg monarchy in 1918, the National Council assumed the role of representing the state, and the chairman of the council acted as the head of state. The Social Democratic Party, which preferred a system where the chairman of the council served as head of state without a president, and the Christian Social Party, which desired a strong president, politically compromised to establish the presidency. The president was elected not by direct popular vote but by secret ballot in the Federal Assembly, with a term of four years and allowed two consecutive terms.

In 1929, Austria amended its constitution to change the presidential election to a direct vote and partially strengthened presidential powers by adding the authority to appoint and dismiss the cabinet and dissolve the parliament. However, in practice, the president never exercised these powers. This was because until 1986, Social Democratic candidates who opposed a "strong president" were elected. Even today, the president is obligated to perform duties from a neutral stance, transcending political interests. The president cannot belong to any political party or hold other jobs during the term.

The reason Austrians opposed a president with strong powers is related to their history of about 600 years under Habsburg monarchy rule. This means that the people simultaneously harbor nostalgia and rejection toward absolute monarchy. Austria differs somewhat from Korean political culture in that the president is seen more as a mediator in political disputes rather than the pinnacle of power. It suggests the need to examine whether Korea has a political culture that can check the president’s active exercise of power.

Professor Kim Jeong-hyun of Jeonbuk National University (former research fellow at the Korea Legislation Research Institute) explained, "When a president tries to exercise certain powers, if both the parliament and the public view it critically, it becomes difficult to implement. In our country, it is hard to say that a political culture has formed that can prevent a president elected by direct vote from actively exercising power."

© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.