South Korea in Crisis: Martial Law and the Fight for Democracy
An hour before midnight on December 3, 2024, chaos erupted at the National Assembly compound in Seoul, South Korea. Lawmakers, soldiers, and civilians flooded the scene as military troops blockaded the gates, legislators scrambled over fences, and police clashed with protestors. The upheaval stemmed from a shocking announcement by President Yoon Suk Yeol, who had just declared emergency martial law on national television. His abrupt announcement shocked the nation—including members of his conservative People Power Party (PPP). It marked South Korea’s first imposition of martial law since 1980, plunging the country into its most severe political crisis in decades.
By declaring martial law, Yoon claimed he was protecting the nation from "anti-state" forces—namely, the opposition party, which he accused of sympathizing with North Korea. In reality, the move would have temporarily expanded his executive powers, allowing him to govern without parliamentary approval, limit political opposition, and rely on the military to maintain order. It soon became clear that Yoon’s own political troubles drove his unexpected decision. Narrowly elected in 2022, Yoon oversaw an increasingly polarized country, where growing frustration over income inequality and political scandals eroded his approval ratings. His sudden move outraged many South Koreans, who saw the declaration as a dangerous return to the authoritarian rule of the past. Yoon’s decree lasted only six hours before the National Assembly unanimously revoked it, with opposition (Democratic Party) leaders condemning the act as a blatant violation of the constitution, which limits emergency powers to national crises and forbids the suspension of parliamentary activities. “[Yoon’s declaration] was a grave act of rebellion and provides perfect grounds for his impeachment,” the Democratic Party said.
Following Yoon’s impeachment and arrest, South Korea’s Constitutional Court now faces a crucial decision. If the court upholds the impeachment, Yoon will be officially removed from office, triggering a national election to choose his successor within two months of his removal. If the court rejects the impeachment but Yoon remains in jail, it is unclear how, if at all, he can exercise his presidential powers. Meanwhile, massive protests by both Yoon’s opponents and supporters have flooded the streets of Seoul and other major cities, deepening the nation’s political turmoil.
While declaring martial law was an extreme and anachronistic move, it was also a dramatic reflection of South Korea’s long-standing political polarization, rather than a simple spontaneous reaction. The resulting crisis underscores the enduring challenges facing the country’s democracy, particularly the widening divide between parties. South Korean politics have become increasingly polarized in recent years, fueled by conspiracy theories and ideological battles. Many of Yoon’s supporters, for example, believe the opposition party seeks reunification with North Korea to establish a communist regime. This belief is especially prevalent among older Koreans, who lived through the Cold War and still carry fears of the North’s aggression. When Yoon declared martial law, he exploited those anxieties to justify his power grab. He claimed, without evidence, that “North Korean communist forces” had infiltrated the opposition and were trying to overthrow the government. Declaring them a national threat, he swiftly moved to ban political activity and place the military in control of the nation.
Although the long-term implications for Yoon’s political future and South Korea’s divide remain uncertain, the crisis has highlighted both the vulnerabilities and resilience of its democracy. On one hand, it exposed institutional weaknesses, with political polarization fueling dysfunction in executive-legislative relations and eroding public trust. While the immediate situation surrounding the President may subside, building a more stable and resilient democracy will require urgent reform. Shifting away from a winner-takes-all system toward a framework that promotes broader political participation and power-sharing is essential. Institutional changes, including potential constitutional amendments, will likely become key issues in upcoming political debates.
On the other hand, South Korea’s ability to resolve its political crisis through constitutional processes reaffirmed the strength of its democratic institutions. The swift action of the National Assembly in blocking Yoon’s martial law decree demonstrated the effectiveness of the country’s checks and balances. Equally vital was the role of the public. While thousands of protesters gathered outside the Assembly, chanting for martial law to be lifted and demanding Yoon’s resignation, there were remarkably no reports of violent clashes with security forces. Instead, the overwhelming response was a unified call for democracy.
In the middle of the night on December 3, legislators made every effort to get inside the parliamentary compound, live-streaming as they climbed fences to reclaim their government. In a moment of symbolic resistance, a politician confronted a soldier and asked, 'Aren’t you ashamed?'— prompting the soldier to step down. At last, Parliament secured a quorum and unanimously overturned the decree. In an era of rising authoritarianism, South Korea sent a powerful message to the world: democracy prevails.