Nothing is as uncertain as the relationship between process and outcome. It would be straightforward if it were in a causal relationship derived from the equation, but not in reality. Just as good intentions do not guarantee good results, fair processes do not always lead to just results. This is why the process of reducing the cost-effectiveness in business that is blind to efficiency focuses on the production of outputs, on the contrary. It is in the realm of politics, parliament.

Different views existed for each of the factions about the election law, the high-ranking officials' criminal investigation law, and the prosecution law enforcement right (the criminal case law, the prosecutor's office law). Although the differences were large with regards to legislation such as the 'Reform Bill, the Half Reform Bill, and the Half Reform Bill,' it was clear that the final destination of each faction was 'reform'. This was the reason why the Democratic Party led the title of 'Reform Bill' in the situation of disagreement.

The ruling party with its purpose and cause of 'reform' was firm and bold. The result was the passage of two bills (election law and airborne law). Although he criticized it as "a historic milestone that declares the completion of democracy," Lee doubts whether the essential purpose of the reform bill has been realized. Through four different legislation, the ruling party's universal pursuit was "realization of democracy," but the transparency and procedural legitimacy of the bill's process have lost ground before the word "reform."

● anti-democratic discussion of reform legislation; Lost transparency

In terms of defining the behavior of all citizens, the ripple effect of the law is more universal and stronger than that of the court trial and prosecution. The rule of law that 'law applies to all citizens', in other words, the realization of the rule of law, "to keep the law," is possible only when the principle of "the convergence of the people's opinion" is guaranteed in the process of constitution. The legitimacy of the bill means that it will be confirmed through democratic legislative processes. This is why Article 50 of the Constitution (the parliamentary meetings are open) specifies the transparency of the bill discussion process.

But what about the four bills that the passport called the 'reform bill'? The constitutional law of 225 seats vs. proportional representatives (50% linkage rate) and the introduction of the defeat rate system on the fast track has been revised in `` Abolition rate of 253 vs. 47 (applied with 30 seat cap rate), '' Amendment was changed, but the revision process was secret.

It is not known which lawmaker has asked to reduce the proportional seats or cap on the basis of any reason. It is only known that they discussed in the 4 + 1 opposition council. The controversial nature of the legal body is not a problem, and even the time and place of the meeting are secret. Of course there are no meeting records. It was embarrassing to call it an amendment, but a new 'election law' was created, but the discussion process was dark and itself.

Airspace law is no different. In the case of passport-driven political parties (except the Korean Party), disagreement was high, and the two acts (Baek Hye-ryeon and Kwon Eun-hee) were posted on the fast track. Nevertheless, the discussion process is closed. The detailed process of selecting 'Bae Hye-ryeon', which grants both prosecution and investigative rights, instead of 'Kwon Eun-hee,' which grants only investigative rights, is unknown.

After selecting 'Bae Hye-ryeon', the final draft was drawn up by adding 10 new and revised clauses, but the grounds and background were not disclosed. Only the results are reported to the public. There is no record of who suggested adding logic that was not included in the original draft (Baek Hye Ryun), and on what grounds it could dispel unconstitutional fertilization and democratic control concerns. The reason why the four bills in a bundle were exchanged with each other and the reason for the answer is that it is difficult to trust even if they answer.

For this, a ruling ruling party called it "negotiation efficiency" and cited realistic reasons. If it is disclosed, it means that consensus is difficult because only unnecessary controversy arises. It is a biased idea that denies the essential nature of the law. In a democratic society aimed at the rule of law state, it is necessary to be able to reflect various voices in a continuous manner during the legislative discussion. The precondition for this is 'procedural transparency', which completely ignores this principle.

It was the Justice Party, the Peace Party, and even the National Assembly, which belonged to '4 + 1', which condemned the secrecy of the budget bill, not the bill. However, the bill is now in a dark state, even after the bill has been discussed. With the four bills, the Democratic Party called itself "a reform bill aimed at realizing democracy." Do you believe that you can realize democracy with reform bills that have bypassed democratic processes?

● The contradiction of "Anti-reformation" dichotomy. Ruling party not ready to be persuaded or criticized

The Democratic Party is looking for original responsibility in the Korean Party. The Korean Party was not even willing to negotiate and discuss in the first place. In fact, the Korean Party, which had been observed at the Special Council on Judicial Reform and the Conference on Political Reform, in some cases opposed to suggesting alternatives. In some cases, it has attempted to delay or fail the meeting itself in connection with other political situations. However, not all remarks from the Korean Party were illogical or irrational. At some point I never thought about the imperfection of the bill.

How did the ruling party respond? Lee In-young, the Korean representative, told the Korean Party, "Abandon the asphalt and return to the negotiating table." The representative also said, "By blocking the treatment of the airspace law, it will be seen as an invisible political deal between the opposition party and the prosecution."

Opposition to the reform legislation led by the ruling party was a dichotomous split that concluded with anti-reformation and preservation of privileges. It is an extreme frame that the ruling party has used since the homeland. Opponents can be as powerful as the simple dichotomy frame that drives them to anti-reformers, but the authenticity of the ruling party has been questioned. It even undermined the working principle of democracy that develops through free opinion.

The airborne law prevented the progressives and even the voices inside the party. In addition to Geum Tae-seop and Cho Eung-chun, who had earlier expressed their dissent, there were a number of ruling party members who pointed out the problems of airspace when contacted individually. I just didn't speak publicly. The ruling party's dichotomy frame paralyzed even healthy discussion in the party. If you oppose the airborne agency, you have given yourself a chance to come up with a more complete bill in the atmosphere of driving to 'adherence with the prosecution'.

In the case of the prosecution of 'police, prosecutors, police officers or higher police officers', public officials of the Airborne Authority may have the right to request warrants for carrying out the prosecutor's office, but they have also granted independent warrants to the president, prime minister, members of parliament, etc. There was an unconstitutional controversy. According to article 12 of the Constitution (a warrant issued by a judge upon request of the prosecutor), the official of the agency who investigates the subject of an investigation without a prosecution cannot grant a warrant for the reason, because it cannot be seen as a prosecutor.

In addition, independent bodies should be specified in the Constitution, like the Auditor's Office, but some raised the issue that the airborne is not an constitutional institution but an independent body that does not belong to any part of the administration. One ruling party member said that there was no problem in referring to the case of an independent agency human rights committee not specified in the Constitution, but the KAL is a powerful law enforcement agency.

These points were raised not only by the Korean Party, but also by the progressive camp that strongly insisted on reforms. Nevertheless, the ruling party kept the bill discussion process completely private, making it impossible to know if there was any prior recognition of the controversy and if so, on what basis. The ruling party simply refused to allow the issue to be raised, saying that "the karate would be the knife of the president, and it would only double the contradictory criticism that it was too independent." If the question is contradictory, the ruling party's criticism of the prosecution and the ruling party's reason for reform are contradictory.

The ruling party originally found the reason for the reform of the prosecution in the 'political prosecution'. Prosecutors in the past governments saw the regime, controlled by the Blue House, and became the 'minions of the regime'. Then, as a reason for the reform, I heard a powerful exercise of prosecution rights. After the suspicion of 'the motherland- 靑 special sense-group-' ha-myung investigation- 사 election election 'was discussed as the main reason. Lee Hae-chan, the representative of the party, wrote the words "prosecuted unspoken prosecution," and revealed the reason for the reform. Two issues can be grounds for prosecution. However, if concerns about the airspace contradict, the ruling party's reason for reform of the prosecution cannot be logically established.

Passports express 'passive of historic progress, ideal of democracy' in terms of passing reform bills, but it is important to reflect on what was lost in the process. Democracy can be welcomed for two reasons. One is respect for diversity, and one allows criticism. The passport overlooked two principles in the billing process. It's only possible to be persuaded to have a real discussion, but was the ruling party ready to be persuaded? Democrats may have been democracy's desire to achieve through reform legislation, but democracy comes from a process, not a result.