지방교육자치시대의 교육감 선임방식 - 정당배제형 직선제를 위한 辯論 -

Abstract

This article inquires into whether the current direct election of superintendents which prohibits any participation of political parties is relevant to the era of local education autonomy. It is necessary to review the current electoral system and its alternatives in terms of appropriateness(Zweckmäßigkeit) and constitutionality. Various alternatives suggested until now to overcome the problems of the current system, however, also have some weaknesses of violations of the constitutional norms and irrelevance to Korean political reality. The most important factor is who has the decisive power in the superintendent election process. Political parties or the electorate? If political parties participate in the process, it would be natural for them to take the initiative in it. Given the political realities of our political parties, the independence and professionalism of education as well as the political neutrality could be seriously violated. This possibility should be considered evaluating many alternatives. Election of a superintendent as a running mate of the Governor, for example, could subordinate him to the Governor due to the de facto vertical relationships. Such a running mate system, like some variant forms, is therefore not desirable. In the history of our electoral system of superintendent, the current system can be regarded as a development, so it is more necessary to design some institutional complements for the better operation. For the direct election without parties’ participation moves the decision power in the election process from the political parties to the electorate, if the political neutrality of education is ensured well. In order to minimize the problems of the current electoral system, the following components should be complemented: inspiring electorate’s interest in the superintendent election among many elections held simultaneously, adjusting the requirements for candidacy to make superintendent's role fulfilled sufficiently, checking random candidacy according to the properties of the election, rationalizing the election campaign costs, ensuring the electorate’s freedom of choice and the candidates' equal opportunity to compete, and reinforcing representativeness. With regard to these, the requirements for candidacy and the methods of nomination, campaign, voting and determining winners are to be designed prudently. Among them, candidacy requirements and the election campaign are the components to be complemented urgently. Meanwhile, methods of voting and determining winners are to be conceived with sufficient time. The writer thinks that the best alternative is a supplementary vote system which is a candidate-centered, preferential plurality/majority system. In this system, voters are asked to mark not only the most preferred candidate but also the next preferred one. If no candidate achieves an absolute majority of first preferences, all candidates except the two leading candidates are eliminated and their votes reallocated according to the second, third and so on preferences expressed. The candidate with the highest number of votes is declared elected.