This past Tuesday, South Koreans went to bed living in a democracy and woke up in a dictatorship.
Late that evening, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol surprised the world by declaring martial law. Arguing that the opposition Democratic Party consisted of subversive pro-North Korean forces, President Yoon subjected Korean media to censorship, banned political activity—including shuttering the National Assembly—and forbade mass gatherings. By dismantling the democratic scaffolding around him after being elected freely and fairly, Yoon engaged in what experts call a self-coup.
In response to this decree, the institutions of South Korea sprang into action. The press and social media disseminated key information about constitutional stipulations around martial law. When they learned what had happened, South Korean citizens chose not to turn the lights off and go to bed. Instead, they courageously left their homes and went out to protest. Legislators from both the opposition and the president’s party, for their part, also ignored the order, converging on the National Assembly, climbing over fences to enter, skirmishing with the military, and ultimately voting to lift martial law, 190-0.
For nearly four decades, South Korea has consistently held free and fair democratic elections. But democracy wasn’t always the norm. The country had a rough twentieth century, replete with invasion, occupation, war, several coups, and dictatorships that lasted much longer than Yoon’s abortive autocratic experiment. Despite 16 declarations of martial law in the first thirty years after its founding, it then consolidated its democracy so successfully that there have been no invocations of military rule since 1980.
Until this week, that is.
Only a few hours after declaring martial law, President Yoon revoked his decree. His dictatorship didn’t even last a full day. Shortly thereafter, the National Assembly also moved to impeach President Yoon. This weekend, Korean lawmakers will debate his actions and vote on removing him from office.
Although the political situation in South Korea is far from resolved, its democratic resilience this week serves as both an inspiration to citizens of other democracies and also cause for vigilance.
Checks and Balances Come to Life
Checks and balances vary from democracy to democracy, but the purpose is essentially the same in each: to prevent one person from accumulating too much power and thus rising above the law.
According to South Korea’s constitution, the president actually does have the legal authority to declare martial law in the case of “wartime, war-like situations or other comparable national emergency states.” However, the constitution also provides a check on the executive’s power to declare martial law. It stipulates that after a presidential declaration of martial law, the National Assembly can debate the merits of the case and overturn the decree.
On Wednesday morning, the National Assembly voted unanimously to lift the martial law decree, taking full advantage of that check provided to the legislative branch by the South Korean constitution. But it didn’t have to be that way.
Democratic institutions mean nothing if its elected officials and citizens do not have the courage to defend them when necessary. The structures of democracy are essential to check wannabe dictators, but people have their part to do as well. In this case, South Korean legislators chose not to stay in bed but to go out at midnight, climb walls, and vote.
Alarm Bells for America
Like South Korea, the United States is riven by partisan divisions. Political scandals in the President’s inner circle provoke the opposition to investigate and impeach. Legislation is regularly stalled. In both countries, there is also a growing gender gap that separates the two main parties.
Despite these clear similarities, there are also some important differences between the United States and South Korea. Currently, the South Korean government is divided. President Yoon, the executive, hails from the right-wing People Power Party. Meanwhile, the opposition Democratic Party controls the National Assembly (the Korean equivalent of our Congress) and has blocked his legislative agenda.
In contrast, when Donald Trump takes office again next month, he will not experience the divided government or legislative gridlock that frustrated President Yoon. In January, the Presidency, the Senate, and the House will all be Republican. And given Mr. Trump’s preference for loyalty over competence or experience in his cabinet picks, he isn’t likely to receive pushback from his West Wing advisers either.
This week, eighteen members of President Yoon’s People Power Party voted against their leader to lift martial law in South Korea. If Trump exceeds his mandate in the coming months and years, will a meaningful number of sitting Republican officials do the same? The evidence from the January 6 insurrection is, unfortunately, not inspiring.
In South Korea, after the inspiring democratic resilience displayed a few days ago, all eyes now turn towards the impeachment vote this weekend. If more than a dozen or so members of President Yoon’s party vote with the opposition Democratic Party, he will be removed and new presidential elections will follow.
In the United States, all eyes now turn towards our own presidential transition. How strong are the checks and balances of our own institutions? And will the people get out of bed and do their part when the moment arrives?
Only time will tell.
