South Korea, often hailed as a model of democratic progress in East Asia, is grappling with a political crisis of historic proportions. The impeachment of Acting President Han Duck-soo, following that of President Yoon Suk Yeol, has thrown the nation into unprecedented turmoil. This dual upheaval highlights the fragility of democratic governance when institutional integrity is undermined by political infighting. The crisis began with President Yoon Suk Yeol’s controversial declaration of martial law earlier this month. The move, ostensibly to protect the nation from “antistate forces,” was widely criticized as an overreach of executive power. Parliament swiftly overturned the declaration, with lawmakers scaling fences and breaking barricades to cast their votes. Mr Yoon’s subsequent impeachment, driven by allegations of insurrection and defiance of investigative summons, signalled the beginning of South Korea’s political unravelling.

Mr Han Duck-soo, as acting president, was expected to provide stability. However, his refusal to appoint three judges nominated by Parliament to oversee Mr Yoon’s impeachment trial drew sharp criticism. Opposition lawmakers argued that Mr Han’s actions undermined the judicial process and obstructed efforts to hold Mr Yoon accountable. This culminated in Mr Han’s own impeachment, passed with 192 votes in the National Assembly ~ far above the required 151 in the 300-member legislature. The ruling People Power Party (PPP) has vehemently opposed these developments. They accused National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik of abusing his authority by reducing the vote threshold for Mr Han’s impeachment. Unlike the 200 votes needed to impeach President Yoon, Mr Woo allowed Mr Han’s impeachment to pass with a simple majority of 151 votes.

Advertisement

This was possible because the impeachment of a sitting president requires a two-thirds majority, while impeaching an acting president requires only a majority of votes from attending members. The PPP, with 111 seats in the National Assembly, argued this procedural difference was exploited to sideline their leadership. Their protests, marked by chants of “invalid!” and calls for Mr Woo’s resignation, reflect a party in disarray, unable to effectively counter the opposition’s growing influence. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) and other opposition factions see these impeachments as necessary to restore democratic order.

However, their approach has intensified political polarisation, leaving the nation deeply divided. The Constitutional Court now faces the daunting task of ruling on both Mr Yoon’s and Mr Han’s impeachments, with its decisions likely to shape South Korea’s political future. The crisis has also taken an economic toll. The Korean won has plummeted to its lowest level against the dollar since the 2008 financial crisis, reflecting investor anxiety over prolonged instability. The absence of decisive leadership further exacerbates these challenges, with Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok stepping in as interim leader amid an atmosphere of uncertainty.

For South Korea to emerge from this turmoil, its leaders must prioritise national unity and institutional reform. The PPP and DPK must find common ground to rebuild public trust and address the systemic issues that have fuelled this crisis. Strengthening judicial independence, ensuring transparency, and adhering to constitutional norms are essential to prevent future governance failures.