This piece first appeared on the Stanford University Press Blog.

The declaration of martial law on December 3, 2024, in South Korea (hereafter Korea) stunned the world. People are still wondering how such an undemocratic measure could happen in an advanced nation like Korea, long viewed as a beacon of Asian democracy. Simply put, the declaration was President Yoon’s political suicide, based on miscalculations and poor judgment, and he is primarily to blame. His days as Korea’s top leader are numbered, and he may face criminal charges for violating the Constitution and even attempting insurrection.

Still, to understand what has happened and learn any lesson for the future of Korean democracy, we need to consider the larger historical and sociopolitical contexts. As I warned in a 2020 essay, Korea’s democracy had been gradually crumbling in a manner captured by the Korean expression “to become soaked by a light drizzle without noticing.” As I argued in that essay and elsewhere, “the subtle subversion of democratic norms across multiple spheres could one day hit Korea's young democracy with unbearable costs.” This is what we are witnessing today.

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our experts' commentary >

Democratic Rise and Backsliding

Korea’s struggle for democracy has been a long and arduous journey, marked by many challenges and sacrifices. It began in April 1960 with a student movement, the country’s first large-scale, grassroots expression of the desire for democratic change. That student-led movement toppled the authoritarian Syngman Rhee regime but, in the following year, faced a military coup led by Park Chung Hee. Park ruled until his assassination by his intelligence chief in 1979, which was soon followed by another military coup led by Chun Doon Whan. Chun brutally suppressed civilian protests in the city of Kwangju in May 1980. Many Koreans, including myself, still hold painful memories of the martial laws imposed in 1979 and 1980.

Korea finally transitioned to democracy in 1987 after nationwide protests and has been considered an exemplary case of the “third wave” of democratization. Even after the transition, however, the young Korean democracy faced many challenges, including corruption charges against presidential families and even the suicide of a former president.

The real test for Korean democracy came in 2017, when then-President Park Geun Hye was impeached — a first in the nation’s history — after months of “candlelight” protests that drew tens of millions into the streets. I observed these protests firsthand. Some experts saw them as a sign that Korea’s young democracy had succumbed to populist forces and that its institutions had weakened, but I disagreed. Instead, I argued that these protests represented a movement to redress the violation of democratic institutions by the country’s political elite. Far from signaling a crisis of democracy, I further argued, Park’s impeachment was a step forward.

I had high hopes for the Moon Jae In administration that came into power through the following snap elections. President Moon, a former human rights lawyer, promised to create a new nation where “the opportunities are equal, the process is fair, and the result is just.” The public applauded his efforts: his approval ratings soared above 80 percent during his first year in office.

Image

Yet, warning signs did not take long to appear in various corners of Korean society. The Moon administration showed no qualms about embracing populist tactics, presenting itself as the champion of ordinary citizens in a battle against the establishment elite. In particular, this approach included a brutal campaign of political retribution to “eradicate deep-rooted evils,” which shed bad blood among conservatives. Many intellectuals in and outside Korea, including myself, grew increasingly concerned by illiberal and populist trends in Korea’s politics. This diagnosis formed the basis for my co-edited book, South Korea’s Democracy in Crisis (2022), which identifies illiberalism, populism, and polarization as key threats to the country’s hard-won democracy.

Crisis in Political Leadership

Yoon Suk-Yeol came into power in this toxic political environment, where democratic norms such as mutual toleration, coexistence, and compromise have become increasingly rare. Much like the 2020 U.S. presidential election, which was a pitched battle between pro- and anti-Trump forces, Korea’s 2022 presidential election was characterized by extreme confrontation between pro- and anti-regime forces. In both cases, a coalition of opposition groups won a narrow victory after a bruising election campaign. Yoon’s razor-thin margin of victory over his opponent Lee Jae-Myung—a mere 0.73 percentage points—is a sobering illustration of just how polarized Korea has become.

Like Joe Biden, Yoon won the conservative party’s nomination not necessarily because he provided a new vision or possessed appealing leadership qualities, but rather because he was regarded as the candidate best positioned to achieve a transfer of power. As a career prosecutor with little political preparation or experience, Yoon entered politics building on his reputation as a strong, corruption-fighting figure unyielding to political pressures. From the outset, however, his political ascendancy raised concerns. As I wrote in a 2022 column shortly after he was elected president, I felt “more apprehension than hope for the future.”

Korean politics, which is defined by a winner-take-all electoral system and a powerful presidency, further intensified tensions between the executive and legislative branches, especially as the opposition controls the National Assembly (with 192 of 300 seats). The Yoon administration was pressuring the opposition with prosecutorial investigations, and opposition leader Lee is now facing trial on multiple criminal charges, including bribery and corruption. In response, the opposition kept passing bills that the president then vetoed, such as the appointment of a special, independent counsel to investigate allegations surrounding First Lady Kim Keon-Hee.

In this highly contentious, polarized political landscape, Yoon’s declaration of martial law can be understood as a desperate attempt to assert control. Reportedly, Yoon said he made the declaration to send a strong warning to the opposition.

Crisis, Growing Pain, or Opportunity?

Now that both Yoon’s attempt to govern the country through martial law and the opposition’s motion to impeach him failed, Korea will suffer from political turmoil and uncertainties for the foreseeable future. The opposition will continue to press for Yoon’s impeachment, vowing to bring the motion to the floor every week until it is passed, while public anger and protests will only increase. There is no realistic path for Yoon to complete his term, which still has more than two years remaining, but it is uncertain how his presidency will end.

While preparing for a new political leadership, Koreans can reflect on their conflict-ridden journey to democracy and turn this crisis into an opportunity for political reforms. There is broad agreement in Korea that the institutions created by the 1987 democratic Constitution, referred to as the “1987 regime,” have outlived their historical purpose. The 1987 Constitution created an extremely powerful presidency with a single-term limit, giving rise to a host of negative repercussions. All but 47 of the 300 seats in the National Assembly are filled through winner-take-all elections in single-member districts. Constitutional reform is required to address the former, and electoral reform is needed to fix the latter. Political calculations, however, have continued to stymie efforts to overhaul these reforms.

Korea’s political culture must also change. Demonizing opponents, divisive identity politics, and insular political fandoms and populism have no place in a healthy democracy. A pluralistic, democratic society naturally encompasses a wide variety of views.

The turmoil in Korea clearly attests to the urgency of shifting toward a healthier political culture and enacting institutional reform. Without such changes, the country risks facing similar crises in the future.