The Case of South Korea’s Martial Law Declaration Concluded

Photo credit: wikitree

Today, South Korea is facing a significant moment rarely seen in its constitutional history. Two days ago, President Yoon Suk-yeol declared a state of emergency, sending shockwaves throughout Korean politics and society.
 

Democracy in South Korea was not achieved effortlessly. It was built upon the blood and sacrifices of countless citizens during pivotal events such as the April 19 Revolution in 1960, the Gwangju Democratization Movement in 1980, and the June Uprising in 1987. During those times, martial law was used as a tool by the government to suppress the freedoms of the people, resulting in the loss of many lives and the devastation of countless others. The presence of military forces in cities became a symbol of violence and death, while the media remained silent, hiding the truth.
 

Now, it seems as if the clock of history has been turned backward. President Yoon has declared a state of emergency citing “the eradication of anti-state forces” and “the preservation of constitutional order.” He justified this by pointing to the opposition's obstruction of government operations, threats from North Korea, and paralysis of the executive branch, but these reasons lack sufficient persuasive power.
 

According to public sentiment, there are three main concerns:

First, the current confusion in governance is a problem that can be resolved within the democratic framework. A state of emergency should only be declared in times of war or national crises; using it to address political conflicts or administrative stalemates is counter to the spirit of the Constitution.

Second, the president's claim regarding the “eradication of anti-state forces” is overly broad and arbitrary. Such terminology has historically been employed by authoritarian regimes to justify the division and oppression of the populace.

Third, this action disregards the legal processes of notifying the National Assembly and obtaining approval from the Cabinet, thus lacking constitutional legitimacy. A state of emergency is not merely a political choice; it is a blade that suppresses the fundamental rights of the people and drives society into crisis. The president's actions undermine the very foundations of democracy and contradict the original justification of upholding the Constitution.

Meanwhile, the younger generation is voicing their dissent, stating, “We are a generation that decided not to remain silent since April 2014. As someone who came to university to pursue knowledge and as a descendant of the May 18th movement, I cannot stay silent. I came to university to capture, criticize, and contemplate issues. Only when citizens have awareness about these issues can they become true authors of civic rights that regulate state violence. We will continue to question and resist.” As a result, young people are gathering in Gwanghwamun and in front of the National Assembly.
 

This morning at 10 AM Korean time, just one hour ago, President Yoon delivered an emergency speech. He stated he would take responsibility for his hasty decisions and for causing unrest among the nation. The South Korean society is now watching closely to see how the responsibility for the chaos caused will be addressed.

A state of emergency is often seen as the ultimate mirror reflecting the fragility of democracy in a society. Right now, South Korea may indeed be looking into that mirror.

One consolation for the South Korean people is that while there are many countries currently in chaos following the declaration of a state of emergency, such as Myanmar, where the military declared a state of emergency in February 2021 and has been in civil war ever since, and Thailand, which is facing turmoil due to a military coup, South Korea managed to resolve the situation in the shortest time possible, lifting the emergency just six hours later.

The incident of declaring a state of emergency places South Korea at a critical crossroads. Under the pretext of preserving constitutional order, we must question whether constitutional procedures are being upheld, and whether the freedoms of the people are being sacrificed in the name of national security. The question South Korea needs to ask itself now is: What kind of democracy are we envisioning through this process? The answer to this question will determine the future of South Korean society.