type
status
date
slug
summary
tags
category
icon
password
Emergency Martial Law Declared in South Korea by President Yun Seok-yeol Amidst Political Turmoil
"I hereby declare the implementation of emergency martial law to defend the freedom of South Korea from the threats of North Korean communist forces and to eliminate the shameless pro-North and anti-state forces that have deprived our people of their liberty and happiness. Martial law is necessary to safeguard the constitutional order of our country. Through its implementation, we will rebuild and protect a free South Korea, reviving the nation in all aspects," said President Yun Seok-yeol on Tuesday night
The announcement of martial law was unprecedented in a democratic country like South Korea, especially since no significant national emergency had occurred. Yet, President Yun abruptly declared martial law, which was issued only ten minutes later at 10:30 PM. The martial law decree prohibited all political party activities, mandated that all media publications undergo censorship, banned strikes and assemblies, and authorized the police to detain suspicious individuals without warrants.
The declaration of martial law caused a nationwide uproar. Although South Korea has declared martial law ten times in its history, the last instance was in 1979 (following the assassination of Park Chung-hee), 45 years ago. Moreover, in South Korea’s history, martial law has been strongly associated with authoritarianism, with most past declarations being used by presidents to suppress activities and consolidate power. The public quickly took to the streets in protest.
The military was also deployed, including armored vehicles and helicopters. A helicopter flew over the National Assembly building, deploying more than 300 special forces soldiers. The National Assembly is a crucial institution in South Korea, and under the South Korean Constitution, the president has the authority to declare martial law, but the Assembly has the authority to revoke it. By occupying the Assembly, the military aimed to prevent lawmakers from entering and revoking the martial law order. Soon, clashes broke out between soldiers, lawmakers, and nearby protesters.
Among the lawmakers, Lee Jae-myung, the leader of South Korea’s largest opposition party, immediately began livestreaming his journey on foot to the National Assembly. When he arrived and found the gates blocked, he scaled the 2.3-meter-high wall to enter the building.
President Yun Seok-yeol addressed the nation again at 11:29 PM, saying, “I will resolutely eradicate the anti-state forces that threaten the nation’s survival and stop their illegal activities.”
Despite the military presence, the troops refrained from using live ammunition. Gradually, protesters and lawmakers managed to enter the National Assembly building. Out of South Korea’s 300 lawmakers, 190 made it into the building, surpassing the required quorum. At around midnight, the lawmakers held a session and unanimously voted to revoke the martial law order. The revocation passed at 1:04 AM, and by 1:10 AM, the martial law troops began to withdraw.
At 4:30 AM, President Yun addressed the nation again on television, stating, “Following the National Assembly’s request to lift martial law, the martial law forces have been withdrawn. I will respect the Assembly’s decision and lift martial law through a Cabinet meeting.” Thus, the six-hour episode of martial law came to an end. However, the late-night declaration of martial law triggered widespread dissatisfaction across the nation. Six opposition parties jointly initiated impeachment proceedings against President Yun Seok-yeol.
The six opposition parties hold 192 seats in the National Assembly, while the ruling party has 108. Under South Korean constitutional law, impeachment requires the approval of at least two-thirds of the Assembly, which would temporarily suspend the president and send the case to the Constitutional Court. A two-thirds majority approval in the Assembly would then require the Constitutional Court to deliberate and decide within 180 days. At least six of the nine justices must vote in favor of impeachment for the president to be removed from office. South Korea’s last impeachment case resulted in the removal of former President Park Geun-hye.
The ruling People Power Party argues that the opposition’s actions forced President Yun to declare martial law. While they do not support martial law, they also oppose impeachment. Even if a two-thirds majority in the Assembly is achieved, the Constitutional Court currently has only six justices in office, complicating the situation.
Why did Yun Seok-yeol declare martial law? One possible reason is the long-standing investigation by South Korea’s prosecution system into corruption allegations involving the president’s wife, including bribery, interference in state affairs, and stock manipulation. Another factor stems from the intense partisan conflict between the ruling and opposition parties. Yun Seok-yeol was elected president in 2022 by the narrowest margin in South Korean history, defeating his rival Lee Jae-myung by only 220,000 votes.
Since his election, tensions between the two sides have remained high. President Yun’s government launched investigations into Lee Jae-myung’s alleged bribery, prompting Lee to stage a ten-day hunger strike in front of the National Assembly.
The opposition party’s victory in recent parliamentary elections has further intensified the standoff, including a proposal to delete three items from the 2025 budget: 1. The Presidential Secretariat’s budget, 2. The Presidential Security Service’s budget, and 3. The prosecution’s budget.
South Korea’s democratization shares similarities with Taiwan, as both are part of a broader wave of democratization in East Asia that truly emerged after World War II. During the post-war period, Japan, as a defeated nation, underwent significant political transformation under U.S. occupation and guidance. The drafting of the post-war Peace Constitution facilitated Japan’s transition to a democratic system, though it can be argued that this democracy was externally imposed. In contrast, Taiwan and South Korea, both as former colonies and victorious nations in the war, saw far less direct intervention from the U.S. in their internal political systems.
After the Republic of China’s relocation to Taiwan, it continued to operate under an authoritarian regime, or to put it less precisely, a dictatorship. Chiang Kai-shek’s martial law in Taiwan lasted for 38 years, making it the longest martial law period in the world. South Korea, on the other hand, adopted a constitution in 1948, which has been frequently amended to this day. However, Syngman Rhee, the country’s first president, did not fully uphold or respect this constitution. Today, South Korea is referred to as the Sixth Republic, as each major constitutional revision is considered the beginning of a new republic. This system is unique among democratic nations. In comparison, the U.S. Constitution has remained remarkably stable for over a century, with only a few dozen amendments.
South Korea’s authoritarian rule began transitioning toward democracy in 1987 when Roh Tae-woo came to power. Roh is comparable to Taiwan’s Lee Teng-hui as a pivotal figure in the country’s democratic transition. This transformation spanned nearly 20 years, and it wasn’t until 2002 that South Korea was considered fully democratized. However, despite this success, South Korea’s political system still faces inherent challenges, which I will discuss below.
First, South Korea’s presidential system is often described as a “super-presidential system.” The president serves a single, non-renewable five-year term, a rarity in global politics. Since the president cannot seek re-election, they often require extraordinary powers to enact significant changes during their term. For instance, out of the nine justices of South Korea’s Constitutional Court, three are directly appointed by the president. This concentration of power makes corruption a likely issue. Additionally, South Korea’s major conglomerates, or chaebols, maintain intricate ties with politics, further complicating governance.
Second, South Korea’s prosecutorial system wields enormous power, monopolizing both investigative and prosecutorial authority. This centralized power structure renders the prosecution almost unrestrained and leads to several issues. Political interference is one of the most pressing concerns, as prosecutorial agencies are often weaponized for political battles. For example, administrations from different political parties have used the prosecution to target opponents, even launching investigations against former presidents. Almost every former South Korean president has been investigated, with many facing charges of corruption or abuse of power.
Another issue is selective law enforcement. Prosecutors have the discretion to decide whether or not to initiate investigations or file charges, leading to bias, particularly in cases involving major corporations or political figures. This selective approach undermines public trust in the justice system. Furthermore, the lack of oversight over the prosecution exacerbates these issues. Recent attempts to reform the system, such as the establishment of a special investigative agency for high-ranking officials, have been slow and yielded limited results.
South Korea’s chaebol-driven economy, while instrumental in its rapid economic development, poses a long-term challenge to democratic governance. The close ties between chaebols and politics manifest in several ways. First, major chaebols such as Samsung, Hyundai, and LG often engage in political donations or backdoor deals to maintain influence over ruling parties. This form of money politics not only deepens social inequality but also erodes public confidence in democratic institutions. Second, chaebols exert significant influence over policy-making, often pushing for regulations that benefit their interests at the expense of the general public. For instance, labor rights and tax policies are often shaped by chaebol interests rather than public demand.
Additionally, corruption scandals involving chaebols and political leaders are rampant. For instance, the “Choi Soon-sil Gate” during Park Geun-hye’s presidency revealed the complex web of interests between Samsung and the presidential office. Such incidents severely damage the health and credibility of South Korea’s democratic system.
In conclusion, South Korea’s democratization journey, while a remarkable success in East Asia, is not without flaws. The super-presidential system, the immense power of prosecutorial agencies, the deep entanglement between chaebols and politics, and persistent social inequalities all pose significant challenges to the country’s democracy. These issues undermine public trust in democratic institutions and highlight the ongoing need for reform.
Moving forward, South Korea must address these systemic problems by limiting presidential powers, decentralizing prosecutorial authority, enhancing regulation of chaebols, and implementing more inclusive social policies. While the road to democratic consolidation is complex, the continued engagement of South Korean citizens and efforts toward reform offer hope for the future of its democracy.
- 作者:Xlens
- 链接:https://www.xlens.online/article/135decdd-9dc2-801c-a190-d13ce53c039e
- 声明:本文采用 CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 许可协议，转载请注明出处。