South Korea’s impeachment votes against President Yoon Suk Yeol, unsuccessfully on Dec. 7 and successfully on Dec. 14, following his Dec. 3 martial law declaration, highlight the deep fractures within the country’s political landscape and the erosion of democratic norms that have long underpinned its institutions. Rather than serving as a moment of democratic reaffirmation, the impeachment attempts devolved into another proxy battlefield in the polarized war between progressives and conservatives.

The root of the ongoing crisis is an entrenched political dynamic that frames opponents as existential threats rather than legitimate rivals. President Yoon’s invocation of "anti-state forces" and his administration’s hard-line tactics reveal a worldview in which progressives are pro-North Korea threats to South Korea, in a continuation of Cold War-era fears.

This narrative has been a cornerstone of conservative rhetoric, resonating with certain segments of the population. On the other side, President Moon Jae-in administration’s campaign against "deep-rooted evils" sought to delegitimize conservative legacies by associating them with corruption and historical revisionism. By casting their opponents as irredeemable threats to democracy or national security, both factions have transformed political discourse into a zero-sum game where compromise is dismissed as weakness and ideological purity becomes the ultimate goal.

A recurring and alarming feature of this dynamic is the rhetoric of “we, the people,” which both parties use to justify their actions. This phrase, while powerful, often serves as an empty signifier -- a malleable slogan deployed to legitimize partisan goals.

The Moon administration, for example, invoked the “candlelight protests” as a mandate for its reforms, positioning itself as the moral embodiment of the people’s will. This led to sweeping changes, such as the dismissal of judges and prosecutors aligned with conservative interests, ostensibly to “cleanse” institutions of corruption. While these actions were framed as necessary to restore public trust, they were criticized for further entrenching partisanship in the judiciary.

Conversely, Yoon has used the rhetoric of protecting "the people" to emphasize safeguarding South Korea's liberal democratic values from internal and external threats while advancing national unity, economic reforms and global partnerships.

Digital platforms have amplified these divisions, transforming political discourse into a chaotic and polarized arena. Social media, in particular, has played a crucial role in shaping public opinion, creating echo chambers that reinforce ideological silos and insulate users from opposing viewpoints.

Conservative groups, such as the Taegukgi Brigade and the New Right movement, have leveraged platforms like YouTube and KakaoTalk to propagate nationalist rhetoric and portray progressive figures as threats to national security. A notable example is the viral spread of conspiracy theories accusing progressive lawmakers of secretly collaborating with North Korea to undermine South Korean sovereignty. These narratives, while lacking evidence, gained significant traction and mobilized conservative voters to pressure lawmakers against the impeachment vote.

Progressive activists, in turn, leveraged platforms like X to coordinate large-scale online campaigns against allegedly pro-Japan scholars, such as Lew Seok-Choon following his controversial comments about the euphemistically labeled "comfort women" in mid-2019. The campaigns included calls for his resignation and public condemnation, with some individuals resorting to physical threats and justifying such actions as necessary measures against perceived historical revisionism. While this form of digital activism underscores the mobilizing power of social media, it also risks undermining trust in traditional institutions by favoring viral outrage over deliberative discourse.

The unchecked influence of digital platforms has fostered an environment ripe for misinformation and character assassination. During the impeachment vote, conservative online forums accused progressive lawmakers of colluding with allegedly leftist organizations, such as the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, and leveraging their purported media influence to undermine the nation's foundations. Meanwhile, progressive platforms alleged that conservative lawmakers were orchestrating a plot to overthrow democracy. These unsubstantiated narratives illustrate the dangers of an unregulated digital landscape where moral outrage is amplified, as Jonathan Haidt writes in “The Righteous Mind.” In South Korea, this dynamic has led to the sacralization of political narratives, where opposing views are not just contested but vilified as morally deficient.

Once celebrated as a global model of democratic resilience, South Korea now grapples with a political landscape where the principles that once inspired its citizens -- justice, fairness and accountability -- are increasingly at risk. The framing of political opponents as existential threats has fueled the weaponization of institutions, from judicial appointments to legislative processes, transforming them into arenas for ideological warfare.

One prominent example is the enactment of the May 18 Distortion Punishment Act during Moon Jae-in’s presidency, which criminalized "perceived distortions" of events related to the 1980 Gwangju Democratic Uprising. While intended to honor the victims of past authoritarianism, critics argued that the law stifled free speech and set a troubling precedent for penalizing political discourse.

Similarly, Yoon’s denial of entry to Korean American activist Christine Ahn, framed as a matter of national security, was criticized as an attempt to suppress dissent. These actions, while justified by their proponents as protecting "the people," demonstrate how the rhetoric of unity can be weaponized to silence dissenting voices and weaken democratic safeguards essential for upholding individual rights.

The declaration of emergency martial law itself underscores the inherent fragility of South Korea's democratic institutions, revealing their susceptibility to exploitation during times of crisis. This episode represents a dramatic escalation in a broader trend where crises are used by leaders on both sides to bypass norms and consolidate power.

Yoon’s framing of martial law as a defense against "anti-state forces" aligns with a conservative narrative that casts the president as a guardian of the Constitution against impure elements of society. This rhetoric reflects global patterns in which populist leaders justify authoritarian measures as a means to legitimize illiberal governance. Progressives, too, have contributed to this erosion, solidifying control over key institutions and framing dissent as betrayal.

As Haidt’s moral foundations theory suggests, the path forward requires an embrace of moral pluralism that acknowledges the legitimacy of diverse values. South Korea's progressive and conservative media are influenced by distinct moral frameworks, with the former often focusing on values of care and harm, while the latter emphasizes principles of loyalty and betrayal. These differences need not serve as a source of division, but can instead contribute to a political culture that elevates the preservation of political community and the collective flourishing of society. Leaders on both sides must move beyond sacralized narratives and foster dialogue centered on advancing the common good.

Recent initiatives provide a glimmer of hope. In April 2023, bipartisan efforts to reform electoral laws through a Whole House Committee meeting -- focused on addressing constituency sizes and proportional representation in the National Assembly -- demonstrated a renewed commitment to tackling structural issues that drive polarization through collaborative deliberation and debate.

Additionally, civic groups like Heterodox Academy East Asia have launched public forums to encourage dialogue between opposing factions on issues related to the Korean Peninsula. These forums prioritize shared principles such as open inquiry, viewpoint diversity and constructive disagreement, with a particular focus on engaging the younger generation. While still in its nascent stages, the initiative underscores the potential for fostering a more critical and deliberative approach to understanding "the other side of the story."

South Korea’s democracy is at a crossroads. The polarization that fuels the rhetoric of "anti-state forces" and "deep-rooted evil" threatens to hollow out the institutions that sustain diverse ways of being. By recommitting to principles of cross-cutting engagement and common purpose, South Korea can navigate its internal challenges and reclaim its status as a resilient polity.

The stakes are high, not only for South Korea’s domestic stability, but also for its role as a democratic beacon in an increasingly polarized world. Only by rejecting the politics of division and embracing an inclusive vision of “we, the people” can South Korea preserve its civic legacy of broadening fundamental rights and craft compelling “K-stories of peoplehood” that resonate on a global scale.

Wondong Lee, Joseph Yi

Wondong Lee is a research fellow at the Center for International Studies, Inha University. Joseph Yi is an associate professor of political science at Hanyang University in Seoul. The views expressed here are the writers’ own. -- Ed.