South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol’s recent actions made headlines. His surprise declaration to impose martial law sent shockwaves both domestically and internationally. The events of last month have been characterized by many as “South Korea’s biggest political crisis in decades,” and they are not wrong. The unanimous decision of parliament to reject the decree and the impeachment procedures against President Yoon have plunged the country into a political frenzy. A substantial portion of the public has rallied against the president’s actions, demanding accountability and calling for the return to the democratic values that have characterized the modern-day history of South Korea.  

As tensions escalate, the country finds itself at a crossroads, with the current political turmoil echoing some of the darkest chapters in its political history. Despite its current position as a strong representative of democratic values, South Korea has witnessed 16 bouts of martial law during the first 40 years of its history, making democracy a hard-earned right of its people.  

“The country’s political history has been marked by leaders who centralized power under the guise of stability and national security.”

Following the end of WW2, South Korea’s democratic development has passed through five distinct phases, mirroring its tumultuous ascent to current-day politics. More specifically, the country has shifted from an illiberal democracy established after the end of World War II to democratic authoritarianism, military rule under Park Chung-hee, democratic paternalism, and – ultimately- the current participatory democracy, as seen after 2002. While democratic values have been present throughout the country’s history, past and recent crises exemplify the lingering tensions in balancing executive power with democratic principles.  

To better understand the impact of the current situation, we need to examine the themes and patterns that led to this moment. The country’s political history has been marked by leaders who centralized power under the guise of stability and national security. Syngman Rhee, South Korea’s first president, started as a democratic leader, but soon after, he consolidated power through electoral manipulation and repression of dissent. Many scandals accompanied his presidency, including allegations of having his opponents killed. This period of illiberal democracy ended with a mass uprising, also known as the April 19 Revolution, which resulted in Rhee’s resignation and demonstrated the public’s capacity to oppose authoritarian rule.  

Following this, a new era of authoritarianism emerged under Park Chung Hee, one of the most influential figures in South Korea’s political life. Seizing power through a military coup, his time was characterized by rapid economic development and transformation. He made widespread use of martial law as a means of suppression, leaving a controversial legacy of oppression and prosperity. In 1972, after a period of democratic authoritarianism, Park abolished the South Korean constitution and established the Yusin system, ushering the country into a new era of harsh, authoritarian exceptionalism. He remained in control of the country until 1979, when he was ultimately assassinated amidst violent protests against the Yusin.  

The exile of Syngman Rhee and the assassination of Park Chung Hee demonstrated the fragile nature of regimes that rely on centralized power.  They also demonstrated the South Korean people’s long-standing battle against oppression and martial law, echoing the current uprising against President Yoon Suk Yeol. The parliamentary rejection of Yoon’s decree contrasts sharply with the events of the past, highlighting the strength of modern democratic institutions. At the same time, it also raises questions about the country’s political stability, with past trends re-emerging to remind us of its turbulent history.  

The assassination of Park Chung Hee was followed by yet another coup d’état, which saw South Korea under military dictatorship in December 1979. General Chun Doo-Hwan imposed the country’s last martial law on May 17, 1980. This led to the Gwangju Uprising, one of the darkest moments in South Korea’s history. After the declaration of martial law, citizens of the Gwangju province protested the military regime, demanding democratic reforms. The protests were mainly led by students and were violently suppressed by the government, leaving hundreds of people dead. The brutality of the incident marked a decisive point, urging national resistance to authoritarian rule.  

The tension between the public and the governing bodies culminated in the Struggle of June 1987, when the unabating public protests resulted in the country’s first democratic elections and constitutional reforms. The transition that followed marked the beginning of South Korea’s journey to a stable democracy. Since then, the South Korean people have remained active participants in shaping the country’s political reality, as exemplified by the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye in 2017.  

“The crisis is a stark reminder of the challenges that accompany the country’s pursuit of democracy, highlighting the connection between past and future outcomes. “

Ultimately, the current protests against President Yoon reflect a steely resolve to avoid past tragedies and protect the democratic values that the people of South Korea have fought for decades to earn. In the past, institutions have lacked the resolve and strength to fight against autocrats. Through the years, however, South Korea’s democracy has matured. While Yoon’s actions – framed as necessary for institutional stability – mirror those of the past, the immediate rejection by parliament and the public reflects a significant shift in institutional resistance against executive overreach.  

While the outcome is still uncertain, the crisis will have drastic implications for South Korea’s democracy. Should the impeachment procedures proceed, they can either lead to greater regulation of executive power or greater polarization. The crisis is a stark reminder of the challenges that accompany the country’s pursuit of democracy, highlighting the connection between past and future outcomes.

South Korea’s progress in building a robust democratic system capable of resisting transitions of power provides both a cautionary tale and hope for the future. The current crisis is not merely a test of leadership but a broader evaluation of the nation’s commitment to its democratic values. In a global context, it raises the critical question of whether previously fragile democracies can emerge stronger or whether historical precedents of institutional instability will ultimately prevail. 

Author: Έλλη Ματθαιάδη 

 

Sources: 

 

Οι απόψεις που αναφέρονται στο κείμενο είναι προσωπικές του αρθρογράφου και δεν εκφράζουν απαραίτητα τις θέσεις του What Politics Means και της συντακτικής ομάδας. 

Απαγορεύεται η αναδημοσίευση του άρθρου από άλλες ιστοσελίδες χωρίς άδεια του What Politics Means. Επιτρέπεται η αναδημοσίευση των δύο έως τριών πρώτων παραγράφων με την προσθήκη ενεργού link για την ανάγνωση της συνέχειας στο What Politics Means. Οι παραβάτες θα αντιμετωπίσουν νομικά μέτρα.