Yoon's actions threaten the democratic foundations painstakingly built over decades, echoing a legacy of authoritarianism that South Korea has fought to overcome
President Yoon Suk-yeol has plunged South Korea into a political crisis that risks echoing the darkest chapters of the nation’s history. As his administration teeters on the edge of a dramatic shift, Yoon has turned to martial law, invoking emergency powers in a desperate gambit to silence political opposition and maintain control.
The implications of his actions are profound, not just for his presidency, but for South Korea's ongoing struggle with its totalitarian past, its relationship with foreign powers, and its own identity as a modern democracy. South Koreans fought so hard to build a democratic system. Under South Korea’s Constitution, the president has the authority to declare martial law in the face of military threats or a national emergency. However, the reasons Yoon provided for his declaration—opposition-driven impeachment efforts, budgetary clashes, and an increasingly fractured political spectrum—hardly constitute a national crisis of the magnitude that would justify such a drastic measure.
The events surrounding Yoon’s attempt to invoke emergency powers are not isolated; they represent the continuation of a deeply ingrained political pattern, where martial law is not only a tool of governance but a reminder of a nation’s struggle between democracy and repression.
The debate surrounding Yoon’s leadership has drawn comparisons to previous impeachments in South Korea, particularly those of Roh Moo-hyun and Park Geun-hye. Roh, in 2004, faced impeachment over election law violations, though the Constitutional Court reinstated him. Less than a decade later, Park was ousted through impeachment over a corruption scandal.
Yoon, while not yet facing the same fate, is set to have his impeachment voted on today following his controversial declaration of martial law, which lasted only six hours and was rejected by lawmakers and the public. Whether or not he survives, South Korea remains trapped in a cycle of political crises, where democratic ideals clash with despotic impulses, reflecting a historical legacy that has shaped the nation for over a century.
To understand the scope of South Korea’s political turmoil, one must look at the country’s history with martial law—a tool that has long been used by political elites to stifle dissent and assert control.
South Korea’s 20th century is defined by foreign intervention, division, and military rule. Following Japan’s brutal annexation of Korea in 1910, martial law became a key instrument of colonial repression, aimed at quelling any resistance to Japanese imperial rule. The atrocities of this period, from forced labour to the sexual enslavement of women, left deep scars on the Korean psyche.
It was a time when the very concept of Korean autonomy seemed impossible, as external powers sought to mould the country to fit their interests.The end of Japanese rule in 1945, after World War II, did not herald peace for the Korean Peninsula. Instead, Korea was divided into two zones of occupation: the Soviet-controlled North and the American-controlled South.
The subsequent Korean War (1950–1953) left the country in ruins, its political and social fabric torn apart by the conflict. In the aftermath, South Korea was deeply reliant on American military protection, a dependency that would come to define the country’s geopolitical position during the Cold War.But South Korea’s reliance on foreign power came at a cost.
The U.S., though a key ally, often dictated the direction of South Korean politics, using its military presence to enforce stability while limiting the country’s true political autonomy. By 1953, when the armistice was signed, the U.S. had established a major military presence in South Korea, which would grow over the coming decades.
This military dominance, coupled with South Korea’s internal political instability, created fertile ground for martial law to flourish as a means of maintaining control.One of the most infamous instances of martial law came in 1961 when General Park Chung-hee seized power in a military coup. Park’s regime, which lasted for over a decade, was characterised by authoritarian rule, but also rapid industrialisation, transforming South Korea into one of Asia’s economic powerhouses. His government used martial law to suppress political opposition and silence dissent, paving the way for further military interventions in South Korea’s political life.
Even after Park’s assassination in 1979, his successors continued to rely on dictatorial measures to control the populace, with the 1980 Gwangju Uprising standing as a stark reminder of the brutality of military rule. It was only after the uprisings of 1987, following widespread protests, that South Korea began its transition to a more democratic system—though martial law remained an ever-present force in the background, a reminder of the fragility of its democratic institutions.
The current political crisis, however, is not just about Yoon’s leadership or the fractured state of South Korea’s political structure. It is also a reflection of the country’s broader struggle with its geopolitical position. As the U.S. continues to view South Korea as a critical ally in its efforts to counter China’s rise, the country’s internal divisions risk undermining its role as a stable partner in the region. The growing U.S. military presence over the decades, with South Korea becoming home to the largest U.S. military base in a foreign country—Camp Humphreys—has been a key feature of this relationship. The presence of 28,500 U.S. troops, the THAAD missile defence system, and the constant military drills aimed at countering the threat from North Korea and China, have turned South Korea into a crucial outpost for American interests in East Asia.
In this context, the political instability surrounding President Yoon and his administration is more than just an internal affair—it is a matter of global significance. The U.S. cannot afford to let South Korea’s internal divisions spiral out of control, especially as tensions with North Korea and China continue to escalate.
If South Korea cannot reconcile its internal political fractures, it risks becoming an unreliable ally in the eyes of its most important partner. This would have significant consequences, not just for South Korea, but for the broader geopolitical ramifications of NATO’s eastward expansion and the “Pivot to Asia” strategy coined by former President Barack Obama, which continues to haunt Asian countries.
(The writer is a journalist and author. Views expressed are personal)