One of the most pressing questions circulating among the residents of Seoul on Wednesday is: what was the president’s rationale?
In a dramatic late-night address, President Yoon Suk Yeol announced the imposition of martial law. This move sent shockwaves through South Korea‘s parliament and raised significant questions about the nation’s dedication to democratic principles.
In a dramatic turn of events, less than 24 hours later, his political future hangs in the balance as protests erupt in the streets and impeachment proceedings are initiated against him.
Can you provide details on the events that transpired?
In South Korea, martial law was last implemented in 1979, a decision triggered by the assassination of the country’s military leader during a coup. Today’s South Korea starkly contrasts its past, particularly the oppressive years that ensued.
Despite being a stable and prosperous democracy, Yoon asserted that he was implementing military rule to protect the nation from ominous threats. The opposition-controlled National Assembly was described as a “den of criminals” by him, who accused it of “attempting to paralyse” the government.
Hours later, he was compelled to retreat as angry protesters and lawmakers assembled outside the National Assembly. The MPs managed to enter and ultimately voted against the order.
His startling announcement was, in reality, an attempt to secure the level of control that has remained just out of reach since he narrowly claimed the presidency in 2022, marking a historic low in South Korea’s electoral outcomes.
Controversies have continued to arise in the short span of a month since that time.
In late 2022, he faced significant backlash regarding his administration’s handling of the tragic crowd crush that occurred during Halloween, resulting in the deaths of 159 young individuals in Seoul.
After the revelation of his wife accepting a Dior handbag as a gift, there have been increasing demands for an investigation, a controversy that remains ever-present in the media landscape.
In April of this year, his party faced a setback in parliamentary elections, resulting in a weakened position for him. This week, he finds himself entrenched in a political struggle with opposition lawmakers regarding the national budget.
Before announcing the suspension of rights for South Koreans, his approval rating had already fallen below 20%.
Yoon’s address offers several insights into his thought process.Clearly, he expressed frustration with the parliament controlled by the opposition. During his address on Tuesday night, he referred to the assembly responsible for exercising their mandate as a “monster that destroys the liberal democratic system.”
The mention of a threat from North Korea, along with the term “anti-state forces,” indicates an attempt to rally support from right-wing conservatives in South Korea, who often categorise liberal politicians as “communists.”
However, the president needed to accurately assess the dynamics of his nation and its political landscape.
His statement served as a stark reminder of a time many in South Korea sought to leave behind. Television footage captured newsreaders visibly shaking during their broadcasts.
In 1980, pro-democracy activists, predominantly students, gathered in the streets of Gwangju to voice their opposition to martial law. The military’s violent response resulted in the tragic loss of approximately 200 lives.
The period of martial law spanned three years, from 1979 to 1981, but it followed decades of military rule until 1987. During that period, South Korea was characterized by widespread suspicion, as anti-government activists were labelled as Communist spies, leading to their arrest or even death.
During his election campaign, Yoon admired authoritarian general Chun Doo-hwan, asserting that he had effectively managed government affairs, except for his actions against pro-democracy activists.
He subsequently apologized, asserting that he “certainly did not defend or praise Chun’s government.”
The statement offers a glimpse into the president’s perspective on the nature of power.
For several months, speculation has circulated within South Korean political circles regarding President Yoon’s potential consideration of imposing martial law. In September, opposition leaders and party members announced it was possible. Many regarded it as an excessively radical choice.
However, it is possible that his actions were influenced by a more profound concern: the apprehension of facing legal consequences.
Park Geun-hye, who made history as the first female leader of South Korea, was sentenced to prison following a conviction for abuse of power and corruption. The investigation into her predecessor, Lee Myung-bak, centred on allegations of his involvement in stock price manipulation.
In 2020, he received a 17-year sentence for his corruption and bribery involvement.
In 2009, another former president, Roh Moo-hyun, tragically ended his life while facing an investigation into allegations of receiving millions in bribes.
In South Korea, prosecutions have increasingly been viewed as a political instrument, serving as a potential weapon for the opposition. This could shed light on the reasons behind President Yoon’s bold decision-making.
Regardless of his intentions, Yoon’s professional trajectory will likely face significant challenges in the aftermath of this situation. Calls for his resignation are intensifying, with reports from local media indicating that members of his own People Power Party are contemplating his expulsion.
South Korea is a stable democracy, yet it is characterized by a vibrant and often tumultuous political landscape. The entity in question rejected yet another authoritarian decree.
President Yoon is set to confront the scrutiny of both parliament and the public following their dismissal of what has been deemed the most significant threat to the nation’s democracy since the 1980s.
