In an unexpected turn of political developments in South Korea, President Yoon Suk-yeol invoked emergency martial law on 3 December, the first time since 1979. In a television address, Yoon justified the decree by accusing the opposition party of engaging in “antistate” activities. Yoon further justified his action saying that it was necessary to “eradicate pro North Korean forces” and safeguard the “constitutional order of freedom”. The anachronistic declaration of martial law, to be withdrawn within six hours, by President Yoon was an incomprehensible shock that stirred up dark memories and painful wounds of state violence.

However, South Korean democracy is resilient, and Korean society continues its efforts to properly heal and bid farewell to the darkest periods of its past. In a peculiar democratic system in South Korea, the President need not have the support of the party he belongs to. In Yoon’s case, he was at loggerheads for quite some time with the opposition Democratic Party (DP), which holds a majority in parliament. Such a situation invariably led to frictions with Opposition lawmakers who easily passed bills, only for the President to repeatedly veto them. The prolonged standoff reached new heights when the DP introduced a bill to downsize the national budget.

Advertisement

It further filed impeachment motions against a state auditor and three prosecutors. Controversy followed as some of these prosecutors were tied to on-going investigations into DP leader Lee Jaemyung. Yoon considered these actions as blatant anti-state acts that disrupt legitimate state institutions and an outright attempt at insurrection. Yoon’s declaration of martial law created mayhem in the country. When 190 lawmakers voted to overturn the orders, Yoon quickly lifted the martial law within six hours. Under South Korea’s constitution, the President must revoke martial law if a majority of the 300-seat unicameral legislature opposes the decision.

It may be remembered that since 1948, South Korea has seen a total of 16 martial law declarations, excluding the latest. Previous decrees were largely issued under authoritarian regimes and in response to extreme situations such as war, military coups, or domestic uprisings. In Yoon’s case, it was sheer misjudgement of the political pulse in the country. Within days of the mayhem that was unfolding in Seoul, this author was conducting a Ph.D. viva online of a scholar from Delhi University who was on a scholarship from the Korea Foundation and was defending her thesis from Seoul.

When asked to share information from the ground on the developments unfolding at a rapid pace, she said the situation was very scary as military troops were airdropped throughout the night around the Presidential house, National Assembly and other critical government buildings located in the area. The reactions of the people were spontaneous. This demonstrated that people who had already tasted the fruits of democracy were not willing to surrender their freedom and rights to an authoritarian system again. Thousands of residents rushed outside to protest the President’s decision.

The South Korean military prohibited activities by Parliament and political parties and banned public protests. In the most undemocratic manner, Yoon since coming to power has had a love-hate relationship with the media, accusing the nation’s fourth estate of playing politics in national affairs, which is why he intensified crackdowns on media outlets. Yoon’s attempts to bring media and publications under government control since taking office had already backfired.

political immaturity was quickly noticed when his own party members condemned the action. PPP leader Han referred to the declaration as “wrong” and vowed to “stop it along with the people.” Ahn Cheolsoo, a four-term lawmaker from the PPP, described martial law as “an extraordinary act of violence that destroys our democracy.” The DP leader Lee criticized Yoon’s declaration as “unconstitutional”, saying there were “no practical prerequisites to justify such an extreme measure.” South Korean experts were equally disapproving. While some said the situation was “flabbergasting”, others said Yoon’s actions were self-destructive and that the situation did not merit declaring martial law. Yoon’s political immaturity was laid bare as his declaration evinced no public support and he failed to judge the public mood. Now the court is the final arbiter.

Soon, calls for Yoon’s impeachment or resignation gathered momentum with both the opposition and the public intensifying their demands. Yoon’s approval rating had already plummeted. The reasons attributed for this were cited as his inapt handling of the First Lady’s scandals and mismanagement of critical policies. Yoon had already felt his position was shaky when several academics had started calling for his ouster from the presidency. The general public was also unwilling to see Yoon continue in office and were having rallies in and around Seoul since August 2022, demanding his resignation.

There were fast-paced developments in the prelude to the eventual impeachment. There was an overwhelming opinion across the board that even if President Yoon was quick to withdraw martial law after he realised his folly, he could not avoid treason charges. DP’s floor leader Park Chan-dae was emphatic when he observed that Yoon could no longer run the country normally and therefore he should step down. After the first attempt to impeach Yoon failed because the ruling party lawmakers boycotted, the second attempt succeeded on 14 December after ruling People Power Party lawmakers decided to vote for Yoon’s impeachment realising that public protests had intensified and his approval rating had plummeted.

The National Assembly passed the motion 204-85 in a floor vote. Yoon’s presidential powers and duties were suspended and Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, the country’s No. 2 official, took over his authority after copies of the document on impeachment were delivered to Yoon and to the Constitutional Court. The court has up to 180 days to determine whether to dismiss Yoon as president or restore his powers.

If Yoon is thrown out of office, a national election to choose his successor must be held within 60 days. Yoon’s impeachment over his stunning and short-lived martial law decree that ended days of political paralysis proved that democracy in South Korea is vibrant and resilient. It also demonstrated that Yoon’s impeachment was an outcome driven by the people’s ardent desire for democracy, courage and dedication. While the Constitutional Court shall take time as per law to adjudicate Yoon’s actions, the immediate challenge before Prime Minister Han Duck-soo to whom all the powers of Yoon have been transferred is to ensure that the volatility in the country’s politics do not affect security interests.

The fear is that North Korea might take advantage of the prevailing political fluidity and launch provocations. Han asked the foreign minister to inform other countries that South Korea’s major external policies remain unchanged. The finance minister was also asked to ensure that potential negative impacts on the economy by the political turmoil are minimised. Han’s broad objective is to ensure the critical task of ensuring normal and stable operations of state affairs. Being a major ally, Han’s office briefed President Joe Biden’s office in Washington about the political situation in South Korea and regional security challenges, including North Korea’s nuclear programme and its military cooperation with Russia. Both sides reaffirmed their mutual commitment to maintaining and strengthening their alliance.

In South Korea’s power structure, while the executive power is concentrated with the President, the Prime Minister takes the reins of the government if the President is incapacitated. There should be no worry in the prevailing confusing political situation as Han is a competent leader with vast experience. Earlier he held top government posts such as trade minister and finance minister. He also served as a prime minister from 2007 to 2008. Support was forthcoming from allies. The US ambassador Philip G Goldberg endorsed South Korea’s democratic and constitutional process.

Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said Japan was watching the developments in South Korea closely and assured Han that bilateral ties shall not be affected. When the opposition as well as members of his own party brought in a rebellion charge against Yoon, he remained defiant, calling his martial law decision an act of governance. The conservative Yoon described the main liberal opposition DP as a “monster”. He further accused the DP of flexing its legislative muscle to impeach many top officials and undermine the government’s budget bill for 2025. He claimed the deployment of troops was meant to maintain order, rather than disrupt it.

This evoked sharp response from DP leader Lee Jae-myung who called Yoon’s speech a “mad declaration of war”. Yoon probably defended his actions by way of preparations for his defence at the Constitutional Court. But in reality Yoon was living in a fool’s paradise as opinion surveys showed more than 70 per cent of South Koreans supported his impeachment. His approval rating plummeted to 11 per cent, the lowest since he took office in 2022. Yoon also overlooked the fact that his claims did not align with the testimony by some military commanders whose troops were deployed to the Assembly. This showed that Yoon did not understand the mind of the military correctly.

As per the available reports, Yoon asked Kwak Jong-keun, commander of the Army Special Warfare Command, to order his troops to quickly break down the door and drag out the lawmakers who were inside. Kwak didn’t carry out Yoon’s order. This showed the military was clearly not under Yoon’s control. The military did not feel compelled to obey orders that were seen as illogical, irrational and smelled of dictatorship.

(The writer is former Senior Fellow at the PMML (Ministry of Culture), MP-IDSA (Ministry of Defence), and ICCR Chair Professor (Ministry of External Affairs) at Reitaku University, Japan)