A Political Crisis in South Korea: Who Is the Enemy?

In the second season of Netflix's blockbuster Korean series Squid Game (spoiler alert), the protagonist sacrifices masses of innocent players for the greater good of eliminating the true enemy. Likewise, in South Korea, the opposition party-dominated parliament's unprecedented impeachment of Acting President Han Duk-soo on December 27, along with former President Yoon Suk-yeol's declaration of martial law on December 3, represents the politics of sacrificing the rights of ordinary citizens for the greater good of eliminating democracy's enemies. 

Just as the Squid Game protagonist's actions invite debate over the ethical boundaries of such sacrifices, these political actions raise questions about the balance between protecting democracy and adhering to its foundational principles. This "militant democracy" (Karl Loewenstein 1937) politics, while rooted in the notion of defending democratic systems from internal threats, is currently neither justified by empirical reality nor compatible with a stable and functioning government that protects the rights of its citizens at home or abroad.

As in Squid Game, the pursuit of this greater good costs significant collateral damage, raising profound ethical and practical concerns about the legitimacy and consequences of such actions.

Yoon's Declaration of Martial Law

On December 3, President Yoon issued a short-lived declaration of martial law. It was the first since the nation's military dictatorship in 1979-1980. His emergency martial law declaration accused his opponents of "budgetary tyranny," turning the National Assembly into a "legislative dictatorship" and a "den of criminals," and even teaming up with "North Korean communist forces." 

This dramatic move invoked memories of South Korea's authoritarian past, raising alarms about the potential erosion of democratic norms under the guise of combating political adversaries. Critics argued that the rhetoric used by President Yoon dangerously escalated political tensions. They framed dissent as treason and opposition as an existential threat to the state.

Yoon acknowledged, "Due to the declaration of martial law, there may be some inconveniences for the good citizens who have believed in and followed the constitutional values of a free democracy, but we will strive to minimize such inconveniences." However, this was more than some inconvenience, openly argued Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok during the constitutionally required cabinet review meeting, minutes before Yoon's declaration, since it could wreak havoc on the economy 

Acting President Choi Sang-mok's Perspective

Finance Minister Choi did not oppose the National Assembly's December 14 vote to impeach President Yoon. The vote received some bipartisan support, including that of then-ruling People's Power Party chief Han Dong-hoon. But Choi did vocally oppose the opposition Democratic Party's unprecedented motion to impeach then-acting President and Prime Minister Han Duck-soo on December 27, for refusing to appoint three additional Constitutional Court justices to adjudicate Yoon's impeachment trial. Han had requested bipartisan consensus on the court appointments, instead of unilateral action. 

Speaking on behalf of the entire cabinet, Choi warned that in a time of national emergencies, the lack of leadership in the form of a "control tower" for state affairs would "cause severe damage to our country's credibility, economy, national security and governance continuity" 

Like President Yoon, the DP parliamentary majority refused to heed Choi's warning, and for the same reason: The nation should suffer temporary inconveniences for the greater good of eliminating democracy's enemies. For DP leader Lee Jae-Myung and his supporters, the enemies are the pro-Japan (fascist) insurrectionists, who sought to impose permanent military rule, not temporary or performative as Yoon claimed 

Their solution is to imprison Yoon and all his alleged associates and impeach any official who obstructs such proceedings. Democratic Party members have threatened to impeach five members of the ruling cabinet, thus losing its 11-member quorum to veto legislation, and even to abolish the "insurrectionist" conservative party. 

The 'Insurrectionist' Irony

The latter demand is not without historical irony. In 2014, the conservative government eradicated the Unified Progressive Party because some of its members allegedly planned insurrection. It was a move that many (including the present authors) criticized as an illiberal, anti-democratic purge. 

Now, some of the same actors who criticized the 2014 crackdown are calling for similar actions against the ruling People's Power Party. Likewise, echoing the dominant conservatives' crackdown on any pro-insurrectionary speech in 2014 or even the 1980s, politically dominant progressives today condemn and seek the termination of professors who supported the legitimacy of President Yoon's martial law declaration. They even file criminal lawsuits to imprison conservative Youtubers, thus restricting free speech and expression.  

Such rhetoric and measures reflect the deepening polarization of South Korean politics. Both sides employ militant democratic justifications and rely on partisan, often flawed sources of information. 

President Yoon and his supporters relied on often incomplete and uncorroborated information from social media, especially YouTube. By isolating themselves from what they consider a progressive-dominated mainstream media, conservative social media has become an echo chamber of "conspiracy" theories. For example, spreading rumors that North Korean hackers actually infiltrated, and not just allegedly attempted to hack, the National Election Commission. 

These unverified narratives not only fuel paranoia among Yoon's supporters but also exacerbate distrust in South Korea's democratic institutions. By prioritizing social media-driven narratives over verified information, Yoon and his allies have further polarized public discourse, weaponizing unverified and sensationalist content to bolster their ideological agenda. 

YouTubers and Politicians: Left's Rumor-mongering

Likewise, Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-Myung and supporters draw on incomplete and uncorroborated reports that Yoon was planning to impose full-scale military rule, that is, a self-coup. Even after Yoon's impeachment on December 14, they apparently thought, the government intended to proclaim martial law a second time. 

The progressive newspaper Hankyoreh editorialized: "Suspicions abound, with reports of the disappearance of some military counterintelligence agents who were mobilized in the insurrection as well as their unaccounted-for weapons, reports that agents of the Defense Intelligence Command tried to contact the North Korean Embassy in Mongolia just before the declaration of martial law, and claims that National Intelligence Service shot down several trash-filled balloons floated by North Korea on Baengnyeong Island with drones to provoke a military conflict." 

Most infamously, progressive YouTube broadcaster Kim Ou-joon, with 1.84 million YouTube subscribers, publicly testified that he received a tip from a foreign embassy about an assassination plot targeting PPP leader Han Dong-hoon on December 3. 

Before Han's impeachment, Kim Ou-joon shared another uncorroborated report that the wives of both Han and President Yoon were infatuated with, and perhaps manipulated by, spiritual shamans ("무속 심취").

Politicians and activists have amplified unverified allegations, contributing to public confusion and eroding trust in democratic institutions. This reliance on sensationalism and speculative narratives undermines their credibility and weakens their capacity to offer a constructive political vision. 

Retaliation Not an Answer

As polarization intensifies, factions within the dominant progressive party are consumed by retaliatory actions and ideological conflicts, sidelining meaningful governance and policymaking. This approach risks alienating moderate and undecided citizens. It creates a fragile political landscape that leaves South Korea poorly equipped to tackle urgent domestic and international challenges.

The opposition party's 22 impeachment motions did not justify Yoon's December 3 martial law declaration. However, neither does the declaration justify the opposition's current count (as of December 30) of 29 impeachment motions. Of those, it has successfully passed 13 

As Finance Minister Choi warned, this cycle of destroying one's enemies has severely undermined the government's response to the numerous threats to the welfare and safety of its citizens. On December 27, when Acting President Han was impeached, the Korean currency dropped to its lowest level against the US dollar since 2009, destabilizing the economy. 

Instead of managing this economic crisis, Finance Minister Choi had to also take on the roles of Acting Prime Minister and Acting President. Moreover, he had to take the lead on the Jeju Air Flight 2216 tragedy at Muan airport, the worst loss of life on Korean soil.  

Polarization and impeachment of government officials have undermined the governing capacity to anticipate and respond to humanitarian disasters, whether at home (Muan) or abroad (Ukraine/Russia). 

Tragedy of North Koreans in Battle

The Republic of Korea (ROK, South Korea) is constitutionally sovereign over the entire Korean peninsula. And it is responsible for the welfare of all its people. During North Korea's mass famine (1994-98), the South's major parties collaborated to highlight the famine and to rush aid to the North.

North Korea's 2024 intervention in the Ukraine-Russia conflict has caused a new crisis. There are a reported hundred Korean soldiers killed and almost 1,000 injured in the Kursk region. But instead of highlighting such casualties and pushing all parties involved to limit them, Seoul has been largely muted since December 3. 

The lack of decisive and coordinated diplomatic or humanitarian actions has undermined Seoul's standing on the international stage and raised questions about its capacity to act as a responsible leader in international affairs. This inaction risks further emboldening Pyongyang, which may interpret the South's paralysis as an opportunity to escalate provocations.

Returning to Bipartisan Governance

Moments of crisis require not more polarization, but a return to bipartisan governance. Acting President Choi supported a return to the parliamentary precedent of one appointment from each major party and the third by consensus, instead of the unprecedented DP demand to control two of the three appointments. This compromise-oriented leadership helps rebuild public trust in the judiciary while reaffirming a commitment to democratic principles over righteous partisanship.  

The current political crisis is fueled by unchecked exercises of both executive and legislative powers, and by an existential war against democracy's true enemies. 

To move beyond the current crisis, we need to consider limits on both executive and legislative power. For example, requiring formal cabinet approval for a martial law declaration and a two-thirds majority for any impeachment motion. 

More fundamentally, we need to return to basic democratic norms of moderation and toleration. Koreans should consider each other as citizens who need to be persuaded, not as enemies to be eliminated. 

RELATED:

• INTERVIEW | Why President Yoon Suk-yeol Will Survive and Triumph
• Martial Law and Impeachment in South Korea: Diverging Conservative Reactions
• South Korea's Democracy is Being Tested — Again

By Dr Joseph Yi and an anonymous colleague. 

Joseph Yi is an associate professor of political science at Hanyang University (Seoul).