Shadow Of Democratic Deficit In South Korea: Yoon Suk Yeol’s Martial Law Gamble And Its Fallouts – Analysis

President Yoon Suk Yeol of South Korea imposed martial law on 3^rd December, 2024, which has severely shocked the people and democratic institutions of the country and sparked serious debates and concerns about how fragile its hard-won democracy is.

The proclamation, which was presented as a step to defend “liberal democracy” against purported anti-state forces, actually revealed governance flaws and how the governance institutions infested by the democratic deficits. Widespread protests and political unrest were sparked by the abrupt suspension of political activities, press freedoms, and public criticism, which brought back memories of country’s authoritarian past. The effects of Yoon’s unimagined decision, looking at how his out-of-the-ordinary action has shattered public trust, caused market instability, and raised concerns about the rule of law in a country that has long been a symbol of democracy in East Asia. 

Martial Law

South Korea is governed as a presidential democracy under the 1987 Constitution, which replaced the prior parliamentary and semi-presidential systems. Yoon Suk Yeol, a member of the conservative People Power Party and former prosecutor general, took office as President of South Korea following his victory in the 2022 presidential election. His administration has had low approval ratings, going as low as 17%, with a November 2024 survey showing 58% of the population would want to see Yoon either resign or be impeached. In the April 2024 legislative election, the opposition kept its grip but still lacked sufficient numbers to impeach the president. Yoon boycotted the opening of the National Assembly even though it is customary for the president to deliver a speech at the event.

On December 3, 2024, President Yoon Suk Yeol of South Korea announced the imposition of martial law during a live address that was transmitted on YTN television. He charged the Democratic Party with harboring sympathies for North Korea and engaging in what he termed “anti-state activities,” categorizing the party as an anti-national organization collaborating with foreign communist entities to undermine the nation. The directive encompassed a ban on all political activities, which included the National Assembly, as well as a suspension of press freedoms.

The declaration of martial law faced opposition from incumbent and opposition party such as Democratic Party and Yoon’s People Power Party, leading to subsequent protests. At approximately 1:01 A.M., the members of parliament assembled in the National Assembly and reached a unanimous decision to lift martial law, with a vote tally of 190–0, notwithstanding efforts by security forces to obstruct the voting process. Shortly thereafter, Yoon withdrew martial law following a Cabinet meeting convened at 4:30 A.M. on December 4, resulting in the disbandment of the Martial Law. Following the lifting of martial law, the opposition announced its intention to initiate impeachment proceedings against Yoon should he fail to resign from his position.

This was the first time martial law had been declared in South Korea since the 1980 military coup d’état after the assassination of President Park Chung Hee in October 26, 1979, and the first since democratization in 1987. Members of the National Assembly are not given parliamentary immunity from prosecution and can be arrested if caught committing a crime. On 3 December 2024, Army General Park An-su issued a decree on martial law in South Korea to protect liberal democracy from anti-state forces and ensure public safety. The decree prohibited all political activities, including those of the National Assembly, local councils, political parties, and associations, rallies, and demonstrations. It also prohibited acts that deny or attempt to overthrow the free democratic system, the dissemination of fake news, manipulation of public opinion, and false propaganda.

 All media houses and publications were subject to the control of Martial Law. Strikes, work stoppages, and rallies that incite social chaos were prohibited. Trainee doctors and other medical personnel who were on strike or left their worksites were asked to return to their work places within 48 hours and work faithfully. Those who violate the order will face punishment in accordance with the Martial Law Act. Violators of the proclamation may be arrested, detained, and searched without a warrant in accordance with Article 9 of the Martial Law Act (Special Measures Authority of the Martial Law Commander) and will be punished in accordance with Article 14 of the Martial Law Act (Penalties). 

Multilateral Responses 

The declaration and subsequent revocation of martial law by President Yoon Suk Yeol prompted extensive responses across the political, judicial, and public domains in South Korea. Within his own the People Power Party, the other leaders assembled to discuss on the potential expulsion of Yoon from the party. Concurrently, there were calls for the dismissal of Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, following the confirmation of his proposal regarding the declaration of martial law. On December 4, the Prime Minister under Yoon convened a meeting with the remaining aides of the President and party leaders to discuss the repercussions stemming from the announcement of martial law.

Dissent emerged within the government and ruling party. Ryu Hyuk, who serves as the Inspector General of the Ministry of Justice and has a background as a former prosecutor, tendered his resignation in protest upon his arrival at the ministry for a meeting concerning martial law, which was convened by Justice Minister Park Sung-jae. Parliament Floor Leader Choo Kyung-ho asserted that he was not informed regarding the martial law order, indicating that his awareness of the situation was solely derived from media reports.

Immediately, the opposition party -the Democratic Party made its intentions clear to commence impeachment proceedings on December 5 should Yoon fail to resign. In the aftermath of the revocation of martial law, opposition leaders escalated their discussions regarding the impeachment process, characterizing the incident as a significant violation of democratic principles. The judiciary has also intervened, as the Supreme Court has initiated an investigation into the legality of Yoon’s declaration. The court underscored several procedural infractions, notably the President’s omission to inform both the cabinet and the National Assembly as mandated by the martial law protocol.

The responses from the public were markedly fervent. On December 4, a significant number of aides to Yoon tendered their resignations collectively as a reaction to the martial law. Observers and commentators, including political analysts, characterized the episode as a self-coup intended to consolidate power. A consortium comprising 1,466 Catholic priests, under the leadership of Archbishop Simon Ok Hyun-jin of the Gwangju Archdiocese along with four additional bishops, has formally issued a call for the resignation of Yoon. Leading newspapers in South Korea issued a unified denunciation of the declaration of martial law, characterizing it as unlawful and drawing parallels to the violent coups that occurred in the 1980s. A notable increase in dissent has been observed, as numerous South Korean celebrities have articulated their vehement disapproval of Yoon’s actions.

Martial law not only instigated a political crisis but also revealed significant divisions within his administration, elicited intense criticism from opposition parties and judicial entities, and incited a broad public outcry. The incident has intensified demands for accountability, with impeachment proceedings and legal challenges prominently positioned within the context of Yoon’s presidency. The announcement of martial law was met with surprise and panic among the South Korean public due to its abruptness. The value of the won (official currency) fell to 1,444 per U.S. dollar, its lowest value in 25 months, and later recovered to around 1,420. The iShares MSCI South Korea ETF decreased by 5%, Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF declined by 4.4%, and Matthews Korea Active ETF fell 4.5%.

Imposition of Martial Law Justified?

Articles 76 and 77 of the South Korean Constitution grant the president the authority to impose martial law in certain situations and to declare an emergency. In times of crisis, such as internal unrest, external threats, natural disasters, or economic emergencies, Article 76 gives the President the authority to make financial and economic decisions or issue directives that have legal legitimacy. These authorities are firmly circumscribed to circumstances in which calling a meeting of the National Assembly is not feasible and if prompt action is required to preserve public order or national security. The National Assembly must be notified as soon as possible, and its consent must be sought. The measures immediately lose their effect if approval is denied, and any laws that are repealed or altered return to their original form. Emphasis is placed on transparency, mandating that the President promptly announce such events to the public.

In situations of war, armed insurrection, or other crises where the activation of the military is required to preserve public safety and order, the President may declare martial law under Article 77. Martial law can be classified as either preventive, which has a more constrained reach, or extraordinary, which permits limits on the freedoms of assembly, the press, and speech while extending executive and judicial authorities. In terms of procedure, the National Assembly has the right to request the lifting of martial rule by a majority vote, which the President must abide by. The President must also notify the National Assembly as soon as martial law is declared.

The declaration of martial law by President Yoon Suk Yeol on December 3, 2024, raises serious concerns over whether these constitutional powers may be justified. Yoon accused the opposition Democratic Party of colluding with North Korea and threatening national security, citing risks from their purported “anti-state activities.” Severe measures including restricting press freedom, outlawing political activity, and allowing arrests without a warrant were also part of the declaration.

According to Article 77 of the constitution, martial law can only be imposed in cases of national emergency that are comparable to war or armed insurrection. Yoon’s threats, however, fall short of this criterion. Despite their seriousness, the claims of political protest and anti-state activities do not amount to war or military combat. Additionally, it seems that the Constitution’s procedural protections have been disregarded. According to reports, the President violated the need for prompt notification and legislative oversight by failing to notify the National Assembly and attempting to stifle its operations.

Martial law’s necessity and appropriateness in this situation are likewise debatable. Without the need for such measures, the opposition’s actions that were used as reason might have been handled through the current judicial system. In addition to undermining democratic norms, declaring martial law to quell political protest seems more like a ploy to consolidate power than a valid response to a national emergency. The unanimous decision by the National Assembly to end martial law further demonstrates widespread opposition to the action, supporting the argument that the declaration was unnecessary.

Yoon’s imposition of martial law is in violation of Articles 76 and 77 of the constitution. A misuse of executive authority is highlighted by the disproportionate exercise of power, procedural errors, and the absence of a true national emergency. Although the National Assembly and the judiciary, two of South Korea’s democratic institutions, have moved quickly to offset this overreach, the incident emphasizes how crucial it is to protect constitutional principles in order to stop future abuses of this kind.

Conclusion

The declaration of martial law by President Yoon Suk Yeol in South Korea constitutes a significant threat to democratic principles, lacking justification in light of the prevailing circumstances. This unprecedented action not only undermines the foundational principles of democratic governance but also exposes a concerning fragility within the political institutions of South Korea. The sudden cessation of political activities and the curtailment of press freedoms, alongside a blatant disregard for constitutional protocols, elicits profound concerns regarding the potential entrenchment of authoritarianism. Such actions pose a significant threat to the democratic values that South Korea has diligently sought to maintain, underscoring the pressing necessity for vigilance and accountability to protect against potential future abuses of power.

About the authors:

• Prof. (Dr.) Bawa Singh, Department of South and Central Asian Studies, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda (India-151001).
• Ms. Diksha Kanwat, Ph.D. Scholar, Department of South and Central Asian Studies, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda (India-151001).