CIVICUS discusses reactions to the unconstitutional declaration of martial law in South Korea with Soo Suh, Senior Program Manager at the Asia Democracy Network.

President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law in a late-night televised address on 3 December, baselessly claiming that ‘pro-North Korean anti-state forces’ were threatening the constitutional order and accusing opposition parties of taking the parliamentary process hostage. Yoon ordered the arrest of key political figures, including the head of his party. People immediately took to the streets to demand Yoon’s resignation, and the National Assembly quickly overturned the declaration and scheduled a vote to impeach him for abuse of power. While the motion failed as members of the ruling party boycotted the vote, Yoon remains under investigation and could face insurrection charges.

Why did President Yoon declare martial law, and what were the consequences?

Yoon justified his decision by claiming that the opposition was ‘trying to overthrow democracy’ and he had no choice to safeguard constitutional order from ’shameless pro-North Korean anti-state forces’. He cited public safety concerns and said he was protecting liberal democracy from forces trying to ‘subvert’ the state.

In the absence of any natural disaster or imminent violent threat to justify it, the only logical explanation for this decision seems to be Yoon’s increasing political isolation. The political divide has widened in recent years, with an opposition-majority parliament effectively stalling Yoon’s administration by blocking key budget proposals and filing 22 impeachment motions against administration officials. Investigations into corruption scandals involving Yoon’s wife have added to the pressure. However, it was an investigation into Yoon’s involvement in an alleged vote-rigging scandal that may have tipped him over. The imminent exposure of his abuse of power may have pushed him to declare martial law out of desperation.

The decree had the effect of suspending all political activity, including that of the National Assembly, political parties and civic associations. It imposed strict controls on the media and banned the manipulation of public opinion and the dissemination of ‘fake news’ and propaganda deemed aimed at overthrowing liberal democracy. It also gave the military the power to detain, search, arrest and punish without a warrant. Under martial law, strikes, demonstrations and other public gatherings deemed to incite ‘social chaos’ are banned, so striking health workers were ordered to return to work within 48 hours.

The imposition of martial law was unconstitutional. South Korea’s constitution sets out a procedure for declaring martial law, and none of the required conditions were met. It was also unconstitutional because it targeted the National Assembly, which the constitution requires to remain in session during martial law. Investigations also revealed that Yoon ordered the army to arrest key political figures, including his own party leader, Han Dong Hoon, opposition leader Lee Jae Myung and National Assembly Speaker Woo Won Shik. This indicated that this was nothing more than a power grab.

How did people react?

The declaration of martial law initially shocked and confused people. Yoon’s justification was widely seen as far-fetched and aimed at spreading disinformation, red-tagging – smearing as communist – anyone who opposed him and exacerbating an already divided country.

South Korea has a painful history with martial law, and the trauma it left on the country is still fresh in many people’s minds. The scars of past state violence have been passed down through generations, and the search for justice for abuses committed during that time is ongoing. Yoon’s declaration of martial law reopened old wounds. This deeply outraged people and drove them onto the streets.

The moment martial law was declared, many South Koreans of all ages gathered in front of the National Assembly, determined to protect their hard-won democracy. They demanded Yoon’s resignation or, failing that, his impeachment. They also demanded legal accountability for what they saw as an illegal declaration of martial law – essentially an act of rebellion or coup.

How did Yoon respond?

Yoon sent in the army, including the 707th Special Mission Group, a brigade of warfare and counterterrorism specialists. Armed and in full combat gear, the military rolled into Seoul with tanks and helicopters to try to prevent parliamentarians voting to lift martial law.

Against all odds, all lawmakers managed to get safely into the chamber. The army and police were already guarding the main gates as they climbed and jumped over them, while protesters and National Assembly staff formed a human blockade to ensure the vote could proceed inside the chambers. In the end, the vote took place with 190 parliamentarians unanimously voting to repeal Yoon’s decision. Within hours, Yoon backtracked, apologising and lifting the martial law decree.

On 7 December, parliament attempted to impeach Yoon, but members of his party, the People Power Party, walked out to prevent the vote taking place, buying Yoon more time. Simultaneously, however, prosecutors launched a criminal investigation into Yoon’s illegal declaration of martial law.

While the impeachment process has stalled, pressure from protesters continues to mount. They are determined to continue their peaceful protests every Saturday until Yoon is removed from office.

What do these events say about the state of democracy in South Korea?

This incident confirmed how fragile democracy can be and how quickly freedoms can be threatened. But it also showed the resilience of South Korean people and their commitment to defending their democracy.

The situation echoed the events of 2017, when President Park Geun-hye was impeached for abuse of power, largely thanks to peaceful protests and a positive institutional response. South Korea’s democracy once again proved its strength in the face of an authoritarian challenge.