자유민주주의(대한민국 헌법)

PREAMBLE
We, the people of Korea, proud of a resplendent history and traditions dating from time immemorial, upholding the cause of the Provisional Republic of Korea Government born of the March First Independence Movement of 1919 and the democratic ideals of the April Nineteenth Uprising of 1960 against injustice, having assumed the mission of democratic reform and peaceful unification of our homeland and having determined to consolidate national unity with justice, humanitarianism and brotherly love, and To destroy all social vices and injustice, and To afford equal opportunities to every person and provide for the fullest development of individual capabilities in all fields, including political, economic, social and cultural life by further strengthening the basic free and democratic order conducive to private initiative and public harmony, and To help each person discharge those duties and responsibilities concomitant to freedoms and rights, and To elevate the quality of life for all citizens and contribute to lasting world peace and the common prosperity of mankind and thereby to ensure security, liberty and happiness for ourselves and our posterity forever, Do hereby amend, through national referendum following a resolution by the National Assembly, the Constitution, ordained and established on the Twelfth Day of July anno Domini Nineteen hundred and forty-eight, and amended eight times subsequently. Oct. 29, 1987
CHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS

(CHAPTER I Article 4 )
The Republic of Korea shall seek unification and shall formulate and carry out a policy of peaceful unification based on the basic free and democratic order

"The North Korean-style socialist regime advocated by the Respondent fundamentally contradicts the basic democratic order in that it takes the political line proposed by the Chosun Workers Party as the absolute good and advocates one-man dictatorship founded on people’s democratic dictatorship and leadership theory associated with the party line that focuses on a particular class. The Respondent also contests that violence such as an en masse protest can be used to overthrow the existing free democratic system in order to achieve progressive democracy, which, again, is contrary to the basic democratic order. Meanwhile, the activities of the Respondent, such as the meetings aimed at insurrection, the illegitimate proportional primary, the violence at the central committee, and the manipulation of opinion polls in Gwanak-B district, deny the national existence, parliamentary system, and the rule of law in terms of substance. In terms of their means or nature, the activities, which actively resort to violence to serve the Respondent’s purpose, are in violation of the ideas of democracy. "

“Inferring from how they perceive and understand the progressive democracy set forth in the Respondent’s platform, the leading members of the Respondent observe South Korea as a pariah capitalist or an anti-capitalist colony under the control of foreign powers and argue that this contradiction is trampling sovereignty and impoverishing the lives of the people, proposing the “progressive democracy system” as a new alternative as well as an interim stage before transitioning to socialism. The leading members of the Respondent propose national self-reliance (Jaju, or self-reliance), democracy (Minju, or democracy), and national reconciliation (Tongil, or unification) as tasks to be undertaken under the platform, and see that people’s democratic transformation in South Korea is a precondition to implementing the final platform task—achieving socialism through federalism-based unification—and that self-reliance should be first achieved in order to accomplish unification and democracy. They advocate the seizure of power through election and the right of resistance as a way to advance progressive democracy, and claim that, if necessary, the existing free democratic system can be taken over by a new progressive democratic regime through use of force. All considered, the goal of the Respondent’s platform is to primarily achieve progressive democracy through violence and to finally realize socialism through unification. “

“The North Korean-style socialist regime advocated by the Respondent fundamentally contradicts the basic democratic order in that it takes the political line proposed by the Chosun Workers Party as the absolute good and advocates one-man dictatorship founded on people’s democratic dictatorship and leadership theory associated with the party line that focuses on a particular class. The Respondent also contests that violence such as an en masse protest can be used to overthrow the existing free democratic system in order to achieve progressive democracy, which, again, is contrary to the basic democratic order. Meanwhile, the activities of the Respondent, such as the meetings aimed at insurrection, the illegitimate proportional primary, the violence at the central committee, and the manipulation of opinion polls in Gwanak-B district, deny the national existence, parliamentary system, and the rule of law in terms of substance. In terms of their means or nature, the activities, which actively resort to violence to serve the Respondent’s purpose, are in violation of the ideas of democracy. “

마찬가지로, 민주적 기본질서를 부정하지 않는 한 정당은 각자가 옳다고 믿는 다양한 스펙트럼의 이념적인 지향을 자유롭게 추구할 수 있다. 오늘날 정당은 자유민주주의 이념을 추구하는 정당에서부터 공산주의 이념을 추구하는 정당에 이르기까지 그 이념적 지향점이 매우 다양하므로, 어떤 정당이 특정 이념을 표방한다 하더라도 그 정당의 목적이나 활동이 앞서 본 민주적 기본질서의 내용들을 침해하는 것이 아닌 한 그 특정 이념의 표방 그 자체만으로 곧바로 위헌적인 정당으로 볼 수는 없다. 정당해산 여부를 결정하는 문제는 결국 그 정당이 표방하는 정치적 이념이 무엇인지가 아니라 그 정당의 목적이나 활동이 민주적 기본질서에 위배되는지 여부에 달려있기 때문이다.