The political crisis that culminated in South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol’s short-lived attempt to establish martial law, which was lifted just five and a half hours after he declared it, did not come out of the blue. While the opposition has been quick to spread its own narrative, there is no doubt that the situation is more complex and requires closer analysis.
The situation in context
The issue goes back to the 2022 South Korea presidential elections. At that time, Yoon Suk Yeol – a former prosecutor general who, following a conflict with then-South Korean President Moon Jae-in had switched to the conservative camp (despite the fact that earlier, Yoon had prosecuted two conservative presidents) – and won the presidential elections by 0.73%, an unprecedentedly thin margin in Korean history.
From the start, Yoon faced a challenge, since the opposition, the Democratic Party, held a qualified majority slightly more than half but less than two-thirds of the seats in the National Assembly.
This power dynamic allowed South Korea’s Democratic Party to block presidential initiatives while pushing their own agendas, which in turn were often vetoed by the president. This situation largely paralyzed legislative activity and fueled the polarization of society.
The parliamentary elections in April 2024 did little to change things. While these elections have been called a significant defeat for the ruling party, the conservatives actually garnered slightly more votes than four years earlier (108 versus 103). The Democratic Party failed to secure a two-thirds majority, but it still held a qualified majority, which allows to pass or block legislation without regard for political opponents. At that point, it became clear that the crisis that had paralyzed the national legislature would persist for the remainder of Yoon’s term.
Simultaneously, the government initiated criminal proceedings against the controversial opposition leader, Lee Jae-myung, who had largely turned the Democratic Party into his personal fan club. There are substantial grounds for the allegations against him, and setting aside the political polarization of society, he would have likely been imprisoned anyway – even considering the fact that five key witnesses in various cases either died or committed suicide before they could testify. In one case, he received a suspended sentence, while another case resulted in acquittal (which was deemed a legal miracle). However, he still faces four additional verdicts.
Given that even a suspended sentence approved by the Supreme Court would end Lee’s political career, the situation swiftly evolved into a race of “who will bury whom first”: either the government would convict the leaders of the Democratic Party, or the latter would successfully initiate impeachment proceedings against the president.
Tensions within the ruling party, exacerbated by a campaign called “People for Impeachment” and backed by associated NGOs (including labor unions, university professors, and Catholic clergy), theoretically gave the opposition a chance to amass 200 votes – enough to proceed with impeachment regardless of the underlying reason. However, most of the accusations leveled against the president by opponents are as groundless as his own claims about anti-state or pro-North Korean forces, which he used to justify the imposed martial law.
Attempted coup and its possible causes
The events that unfolded during the “five hours of martial law” evoke memories of the military coups led by former South Korean presidents Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan, and the saying, “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”
At 11pm local time on December 3, following a closed-door meeting allegedly initiated by the Minister of National Defense, President Yoon addressed the nation, and for the first time since 1979, imposed “martial law to protect the free Republic of Korea from the threat of North Korean communist forces, to eradicate the despicable pro-North Korean anti-state forces that are plundering the freedom and happiness of our people, and to protect the free constitutional order.”
Yoon accused the opposition of paralyzing the government with anti-state activities. “The National Assembly has become a haven for criminals, paralyzing the judicial and administrative systems and attempting to overthrow the free democratic system through legislative dictatorship,” he said.
Following Yoon’s address, General Park An-soo, the martial law commander, announced a decree banning all political activity, including protests and parties. Military vehicles entered the city; however, despite the blockade of the parliament building, lawmakers, backed by the crowd, managed to get inside. 190 MPs then unanimously voted to rescind martial law in accordance with the country’s constitution. Military forces began to withdraw, and shortly thereafter, the president made another address to the nation. He said that he wanted to safeguard the country, but since the parliament had opposed his decision, martial law will be lifted.
To say that this story has left me astounded is an understatement. I had earlier considered the possibility of a “top-down coup,” but ultimately, it seemed quite unlikely. In my opinion, which was expressed in a recent article for the internet journal New Eastern Outlook, “President Yoon, despite his rigid stance, recognizes that he has neither a reason nor an opportunity to impose martial law … Tanks in the streets would spark mass protests, and the army is not prepared to fire at civilians. Ultimately, we could witness a scenario reminiscent of the 1991 Soviet coup attempt, when the opposition consolidated against the president which led to a number of casualties and [eventually resulted in] the complete defeat of the coup plotters.”
Adding to the intrigue, it became clear that neither the Prime Minister of South Korea nor the leader of the ruling party were informed of the president’s decision. The latter was among the first to label the move as incorrect and voted against it in parliament. News of the martial law even reached Washington. US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said that the US was watching the developments with “grave concern” and reminded Seoul that democracy underpins the US-South Korea alliance, and any political disputes should be resolved peacefully and in accordance with the rule of law.
South Korean society did not consider the situation critical, given the fact that the Democratic Party has been talking about the impending dictatorship and urging people to take to the streets since their leader was threatened with imprisonment. As a result, Yoon’s actions backfired on him and were even condemned even by the leaders of the ruling party. It’s important to recognize that today, the South Korean military is not the same as it was during the dictatorship – it is not ready to fire at civilians. In this context, it’s reassuring that the president opted against escalation that could have resulted in bloodshed.
Interestingly, Yoon Suk-Yeol’s actions also puzzled Pyongyang. Instead of airing a full morning news broadcast, North Korean state media mostly broadcast music. Meanwhile, North Korean newspapers reported that yet another “progressive organization” had called for impeachment without, however, mentioning the recent events. As of the time of writing, the North Korean Central News Agency has still not commented on the matter.
What could have prompted the president to make such a seemingly misguided move? As I noted in a previous article, Yoon is pragmatic enough to understand the risks that would come with failure, so it is crucial to understand his motive. There are several theories at this point.
According to one, Yoon simply lost his nerve. Another theory suggests that either Yoon or his advisors (reportedly the martial law idea was suggested by Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun, the former head of the presidential security service and Yoon’s former schoolmate) thought they could get ahead of the situation but misjudged the capabilities and effectiveness of South Korean security forces. A third theory proposes that the decision was made spontaneously under some external pressure, forcing the president to go all-in.
A similar idea implies that misinformation from Yoon’s adversaries might have manipulated him into making a move that would lead to his downfall. It’s worth noting that President Yoon is not a seasoned politician. The former prosecutor general, who transitioned into politics just a year before becoming president, may lack a deep understanding of how bureaucracy operates, particularly since the prosecutor’s office in South Korea is a militarized structure with strict internal discipline. We may draw parallels to the Park Geun-hye era, when a close circle of advisors manipulated the leader through biased information.
Curiously, some conspiracy theorists believe that the US might have played a role in this affair. Despite Yoon’s pro-American stance, he has not altered his policy regarding Ukraine, and a delegation led by Ukrainian Minister of Defense Rustem Umerov left South Korea empty-handed. Amid the growing ties between Moscow and Pyongyang, there were grounds to suspect that the “red line” between Seoul and Moscow could soon be crossed and South Korea would send military aid to Kiev, but this did not happen. Therefore, we may not exclude the possibility that the outgoing Biden administration may have provided Yoon with some “trustworthy intelligence,” compelling him to risk everything.
So what comes next? A failure like this, which alienated nearly everyone from the president, is equal to political suicide. The more Yoon clings to power, the lower his already dwindling approval ratings will fall; he will be held accountable for all past mistakes, and it will be very hard to get his point across. The opposition has already demanded Yoon’s immediate resignation, since an attempt to enact martial law without due justification is considered an act of rebellion. On December 4, opposition parties in the National Assembly filed a motion to introduce an impeachment bill against Yoon. Given that many conservative MPs supported the opposition in this decision, they are likely to secure the 200+ votes required to impeach the president.
Moreover, the South Korean government and presidential administration have also announced their resignations. Among those stepping down are Chief of Staff Chung Jin-suk, National Security Bureau Director Shin Won-sik, Chief of Policy Sung Tae-yoon, and other high-ranking officials.
What does this mean for the major political parties? While impeachment may slow down the judicial process against the opposition leader, societal polarization remains high. As a result, the Democratic Party is working to pass retroactive legislation that could shorten statutes of limitations on certain offenses, potentially allowing cases to be dropped. As for the conservative party, it has taken a firm stance and distanced itself from the president, so the conservatives might have a fair shot in the upcoming presidential elections, especially if the court acts lawfully and Lee is imprisoned.
How does all this affect global instability and Russia’s interests? First off, it’s important not to conflate different events. The situations in Georgia, Abkhazia, Syria, and South Korea are unrelated. This situation has been a long-standing issue for South Korea, and it could have unfolded a month earlier or later, depending on domestic political triggers.
A more pressing question for Russia is whether the new government will be better or worse than the old one when it comes to Russia’s interests. On the one hand, due to party politics, the Democratic Party might undo the former president’s initiatives, including his pivot toward closer ties with the US and Japan. On the other hand, under President Yoon, South Korea maintained its status as “the friendliest of unfriendly nations” regarding Russia, whereas Democrats tend to lean towards populist solutions and have a pro-European agenda that could push them towards supporting Ukraine.
Both the conservatives and democrats in South Korea are heavily influenced by the US. The rhetoric of the Democratic Party about strategic autonomy from the US merely reflects internal party struggles: when Conservatives emphasize a strong alliance with the US, Democrats must counter that narrative. This means that to secure some maneuverability on sensitive issues, concessions must be made elsewhere. President Yoon was fully aligned with Washington on the issue of North Korea but retained flexibility regarding Russia and China. In contrast, democrats prioritize North Korea, which may lead them to “sacrifice” Russia and China.
Overall, the situation surrounding the declaration of martial law is quite complex, and it would be simplistic to believe the narrative that the president wanted to establish a dictatorship but was thwarted by the people. All we can say is that South Korea’s political life will be quite eventful in the near future, so stay tuned.