South Korean President’s Martial Law Declaration and Its Aftermath

On Tuesday night, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol unexpectedly declared martial law, marking the first such instance in the Asian democracy in almost five decades. This significant action, announced during a late-night television broadcast, was justified by references to “anti-state forces” and the perceived threat from North Korea. However, it quickly became apparent that the declaration stemmed not from external dangers but from the president’s severe domestic political difficulties. The declaration led to thousands of individuals converging at the parliament in protest, while opposition legislators swiftly moved to initiate an emergency vote to revoke the measure. Following his defeat, President Yoon appeared several hours later to acknowledge the parliamentary vote and rescind the martial law order. Currently, legislators are scheduled to vote on a motion to impeach President Yoon, a move prompted by what the nation’s primary opposition party has labeled his “insurrectionary behaviour”. According to observers, Yoon has presented himself as a leader under intense pressure. During his Tuesday night address, he detailed efforts by the political opposition to destabilize his administration, subsequently stating his intention to declare martial law to “crush anti-state forces that have been wreaking havoc”. The presidential decree temporarily transferred authority to the military, resulting in the deployment of helmeted troops and police to the National Assembly parliament building. Helicopters were observed landing on its roof. Additionally, local media outlets broadcast footage of masked, armed soldiers entering the building, while staff members attempted to repel them using fire extinguishers. Approximately at 23:00 local time on Tuesday (14:00 GMT), the military issued an order prohibiting protests and activities by parliamentary and political organizations, and placing media under government oversight. Nevertheless, South Korean politicians promptly denounced President Yoon’s declaration as illegal and unconstitutional. Even the leader of his own conservative People’s Power Party characterized Yoon’s action as “the wrong move”. Concurrently, Lee Jae-myung, leader of the liberal Democratic Party, South Korea’s largest opposition party, urged his Members of Parliament to gather at the parliament to defeat the declaration. He also appealed to the general public to assemble at the parliament in protest, stating: “Tanks, armoured personnel carriers and soldiers with guns and knives will rule the country… My fellow citizens, please come to the National Assembly.” Thousands responded to this appeal, quickly congregating outside the parliament, which was by then heavily secured. Demonstrators chanted slogans such as “No martial law!” and “strike down dictatorship”. Local media reporting from the scene depicted minor altercations between protesters and police at the entry points. However, despite the military’s presence, the situation did not escalate into violent confrontations. Furthermore, lawmakers managed to bypass the barricades, with some even scaling fences to reach the voting chamber. Shortly after 01:00 on Wednesday, the South Korean parliament, with 190 of its 300 members in attendance, voted to reject the measure. Consequently, President Yoon’s martial law declaration was deemed invalid. Martial law signifies a temporary governance by military authorities during an emergency, when civilian governance is considered inoperative. The previous declaration of martial law in South Korea occurred in 1979, following the assassination of the nation’s then-long-serving military dictator, Park Chung-hee, amidst a coup. Since South Korea transitioned into a parliamentary democracy in 1987, it had not been invoked until Tuesday, when President Yoon initiated it, stating in a national address that his aim was to protect South Korea from “anti-state forces”. President Yoon, known for adopting a significantly more hardline approach towards North Korea compared to previous leaders, characterized the political opposition as sympathizers of North Korea, without offering supporting evidence. Under martial law, the military is granted additional powers, frequently leading to the suspension of civil rights for citizens and a reduction in rule of law standards and protections. Notwithstanding the military’s announcement of limitations on political engagement and media, both protesters and politicians disregarded these directives. There was no indication of the government taking control of independent media; Yonhap, the national broadcaster, and other news organizations continued their regular reporting. President Yoon, elected in May 2022 as a hardline conservative, has been a lame-duck president since April, following the opposition’s decisive victory in the nation’s general election. Since that time, his administration has been unable to enact its desired legislation, instead being compelled to veto bills passed by the liberal opposition. His approval ratings have also declined, reaching lows of approximately 17%, amidst his involvement in multiple corruption scandals this year. These include an incident concerning the First Lady’s acceptance of a Dior bag and another related to alleged stock manipulation. Only last month, he was compelled to deliver a public apology on national television, announcing the establishment of an office to oversee the First Lady’s responsibilities. However, he declined a more extensive investigation, despite calls from opposition parties. Subsequently, this week, the opposition put forward a proposal to significantly reduce a major government budget bill, a measure that is not subject to a presidential veto. Concurrently, the opposition also initiated proceedings to impeach cabinet members and several senior prosecutors, including the head of the government’s audit agency, citing their failure to investigate the First Lady. The opposition Democratic Party has put forward a motion to impeach President Yoon himself. Parliament is scheduled to vote by Saturday on this matter. South Korea’s impeachment process is comparatively uncomplicated. For it to succeed, it necessitates the backing of over two-thirds of the 300-member National Assembly, equating to a minimum of 200 votes. Should an impeachment be approved, a trial proceeds before the Constitutional Court, a nine-member body responsible for overseeing South Korea’s governmental branches. If six of the court’s members vote to uphold the impeachment, the president is removed from their position. Should this occur, it would not be an unprecedented event for a South Korean president to face impeachment. In 2016, then-President Park Geun-hye was impeached following accusations of assisting a friend in committing extortion. In 2004, another president, Roh Moo-hyun, was impeached and suspended for two months, though the Constitutional Court subsequently reinstated him. President Yoon’s impulsive decision astonished the nation, which perceives itself as a flourishing, contemporary democracy that has significantly progressed since its period of dictatorship. Many consider this week’s developments to be the most substantial challenge to that democratic society in decades. Experts suggest it could be more detrimental to South Korea’s democratic standing than even the 6 January riots in the US. Leif-Eric Easley, an expert at Ewha University in Seoul, commented: “Yoon’s declaration of martial law appeared to be both legal overreach and a political miscalculation, unnecessarily risking South Korea’s economy and security.” He added, “He sounded like a politician under siege, making a desperate move against mounting scandals, institutional obstruction and calls for impeachment, all of which are now likely to intensify.”