http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
정대화 ( Dae Hwa Chung ) 민주사회정책연구원 2003 민주사회와 정책연구 Vol.3 No.-
Democracy in Korea has started since 1980s, especially June Uprising in 1987. If we evaluate the past 15 years from the point of democracy, Korean democracy developed gradually and come to the condition of democratic institutionalization or consolidation. The Civil government of president YS and the People`s government of president DJ will be a clear evidence of democracy. But another aspects are added in Korean democracy. During the process of democratization, because democracy achieved restrictedly, Korean democracy is named restricted democracy. The cases of restricted democracy are a limit of party democracy, specially non democratic feature of public recommendation, the problem in the separation of the three powers of government, over concenturated power of the president, various electional problems, etc. So Korean democracy must be reached at the crisis of democratic deepening. And, as a result of 2002 presidential election, the direction and character of Korean democracy will be determined. The conflict structure of presidential election is the confrontation between the reformists and the traditional conservatives. The direction of democratization will be affected by the result of this confrontation, but the basical direction of Korean democracy will not be changed. In this perspective, we can prospect the direction of Korean democracy such as next five characters after 2002 presidential election. First character is the polities of equality cut off all kinds of monopoly and discrimaination. Second is the politics of balance between the progresives and the conservatives over the regionalism. Third is the politics of participation opened to all society. Fourth is the establishment of the separation of three powers and the activation of the parliamentary politics. The last is the achievement of the participatory democracy. In the presidential election, if the reformists take the victory, democracy and reform will be activated. On the contrary, the traditional conservatives taking the victory, partially restricted. But in any case of presidential election, the process of the democratic institutionalization and consolidation, and the democratic deepening will not be broken off basically.
정대화 ( Chung Dae Hwa ) 민주사회정책연구원 2017 민주사회와 정책연구 Vol.32 No.-
우리 사회의 민주화 과정에서 구조화된 사학비리와 분규를 해결하기 위해 사학 민주화가 추진되었고, 그 일환으로 사립학교법이 개정되고 임시이사 제도가 적용되었다. 그러나 임시이사 파견이 증가하고 임시이사체제가 장기화하는 과정에서 이에 대한 사학 측의 저항으로 사학분쟁조정위원회(이하 사분위)라는 새로운 제도가 도입되었다. 사분위는 임시이사를 선임하고 임시이사가 파견된 학교의 정상화를 심의하는 등 사학분쟁을 조정하는 역할을 담당하는 기구로 발족되었다. 그러나 실제 운영과정에서 사분위는 사학분쟁을 조정하는 기구가 아니라 비리재단을 복귀시킴으로써 오히려 사학분규를 더욱 촉발하는 역효과를 초래했다. 사분위의 이러한 역기능은 제도의 구상과 설계, 제도의 운영, 제도를 운영한 결과에서 공통적으로 나타났다. 이런 점에서 사분위는 사학분쟁의 조정이라는 애초의 입법 취지를 달성하는 데 실패했음이 판명되었을뿐만 아니라 제도적 개선의 여지 또한 없는 것으로 평가되므로 현행 사분위 제도를 폐지하고 사학 문제를 다루는 새로운 제도를 모색하는 것이 바람직하다. In the course of socio-political democratization, we propelled democratization of private school to resolve the structured corruption and dispute of private school. And as part of it, private school act was revised and the program of government-appointed directors was put in force. But new institution of PSDR was introduced as a resistance of private school against such a democratization of private school. PSDR was designed to appoint government-appointed directors and to normalize the school of government-appointed directors. Nontheless PSDR brought about some opposite effects triggering private school dispute not by resolution of private school dispute but by back-to-school of old directors. Such a dysfunction and limit of PSDR has been proved commonly in aspect of instition plan and design, operation of instition, and the result. Therethrough, because PSDR failed to achieve the meaning of legislation, and have not any possibility of improvement, desirable choice will be to abolish present institution of PSDR, and then search a new alternative to resolve the private school problem.
[특집 - 진보정치의 현주소와 향후 전망] 시민운동의 관점에서 본 진보정당 - 민주노동당과 시민운동의 관계를 중심으로
정대화(Chung Dae-Hwa) 비판사회학회 2004 경제와 사회 Vol.- No.64
2004년 총선에서 민주노동당이 원내진출에 성공한 것은 매우 중요한 정치사적 의미를 갖는다. 민주노동당은 노동자와 농민 등 기층 민중진영의 조직화를 바탕으로 원내진출에 성공했을 뿐만 아니라 이를 계기로 보수 일변도의 정치구조를 진보적으로 견인함으로써 새로운 정치를 전개할 수 있는 기반을 마련했다. 시민운동이 민주노동당의 원내진출을 매우 긍정적으로 평가하는 것도 이런 점 때문이다. 반면, 민주노동당이 시민운동의 요구를 수렴하여 적극적으로 원내활동을 수행하는 문제나 향후 의석을 확대할 가능성에 대해서는 긍정적인 평가 못지않게 부정적이거나 회의적인 평가가 존재하는 것도 사실이다. 이것은 이념과 현실의 괴리, 당내 분파주의, 노동조합에의 과도한 의존성, 지역적ㆍ시민적 토대의 결여 등 민주노동당이 안고 있는 한계 때문인 것으로 평가된다. 따라서 노동자계급에 기반한 민주노동당이 이러한 한계를 극복하면서 어떻게 시민적 대중성을 확보하느냐에 따라 앞으로의 진로가 결정될 것으로 전망된다. It has a historically Important meaning that the Korea Democratic Labor Party(KDLP) entered into the National Assembly for the first time to 2004 general election Not only did KDLP succeed to entering into the floor on the base of the political empowerment of the lower classes as like labor class and peasant class, but also made a foundation of new politics by pulling an absolutely conservative politics into the progressive direction. This is why civil movements set a high value on the entry of KDLP into the floor On the other hand there are some skeptic prospects about KDLP's carrying out the commitment and increasing their seats in the National Assembly These skepticisms arise from KDLP's limitations, for instance, the discordance between the Ideology and the reality, the internal factionalism, the lack of the local and civil bases and so on Therefore possibility of KDLP in future will depend on how to overcome these limitations and secure the civil popularity.