The current political climate in South Korea is increasingly defined by a politics of elimination -- the idea that democratic enemies must be sacrificed for the greater good. However, this approach is neither grounded in empirical reality nor conducive to a stable and functioning government capable of addressing crises at home and abroad.
In the second season of Netflix's hit series “Squid Game” (spoiler alert), the protagonist sacrifices innocent players to eliminate the true enemy. A similar dynamic is unfolding in South Korea, where the opposition-dominated parliament's unprecedented impeachment of acting President Han Duk-soo on Dec. 27, and President Yoon Suk Yeol's martial law declaration on Dec. 3, reflect a similar calculus. This politics of "militant democracy" (Karl Loewenstein, 1937) is presented as necessary for safeguarding the nation, but it undermines both democratic norms and effective governance.
On Dec. 3, Yoon issued a short-lived martial law declaration -- the first in South Korea since the military dictatorship era of 1979-1980. His move was driven by allegations that his political opponents had engaged in "budgetary tyranny," turning the National Assembly into a "legislative dictatorship" and a "den of criminals," even suggesting collaboration with "North Korean communist forces." While Yoon acknowledged that martial law could inconvenience law-abiding citizens who support democratic values, he assured that efforts would be made to minimize such disruptions. Yet, Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok, speaking just before the martial law declaration, warned that this could wreak havoc on the economy.
Choi did not oppose the Dec. 14 vote to impeach President Yoon -- which garnered some bipartisan support, including from the ruling People’s Power Party chief Han Dong-hoon. However, Choi did vocally oppose the Democratic Party of Korea's motion to impeach acting President Han Duk-soo on Dec. 27. Han had refused to unilaterally appoint three new Constitutional Court justices, instead calling for bipartisan consensus. Choi, representing the entire Cabinet, warned that in a time of national emergencies, the lack of leadership in the form of a "control tower" for state affairs would severely damage the country’s credibility, economy, national security and governance continuity.
But, like Yoon, the Democratic Party majority rejected Choi’s warning. For Yoon and his supporters, the political enemies are corrupt, obstructionist, pro-North Korea (communist) forces, led by Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung. On the other hand, for Lee and his supporters, the enemies are pro-Japan (fascist) forces intent on imposing permanent military rule. The solution, in Lee's view, is to imprison Yoon and his associates, and to impeach any official obstructing such efforts. Democratic Party members have threatened to impeach five members of the ruling Cabinet (which would thus lose its 11-member quorum to veto legislation).
This cycle of political retribution is not without historical irony. In 2014, the conservative government eradicated the Unified Progressive Party, a move many (including one of the present authors) criticized as an anti-democratic purge. Now, some of the same forces that criticized the 2014 crackdown are calling for similar actions against the ruling party, including the dissolution of the “insurrectionist” People’s Power Party.
The unprecedented nature of these political actions -- Yoon's martial law declaration and the Democratic Party’s 29 impeachment motions, including that of an acting president -- has intensified the polarization. Both sides rely on incomplete and often unverified information to justify their actions. Yoon’s supporters are drawn to right-wing social media, particularly YouTube, where rumors and conspiracy theories flourish. Similarly, some opposition party members share reports of mysterious assassination plots, unaccounted-for weapons and shamanic interventions.
These often-unverified assertions contribute to a climate of distrust, where both sides see each other as existential threats to democracy itself. However, such polarized thinking is corrosive to the democratic system. The core principle of democracy is that political disputes should be resolved through dialogue and compromise, not through the elimination of one's political opponents.
Moreover, the government’s capacity to respond to crises has been severely hampered by the ongoing political infighting. When acting President Han was impeached on Dec. 27, the South Korean won plunged to its lowest level against the US dollar since 2009. Finance Minister Choi, having barely assumed the role of acting President and acting Prime Minister, found himself tasked with managing both the economic crisis and the government’s response to the catastrophic Jeju Air Flight 2216 crash in Muan -- the worst aviation disaster ever to occur on Korean soil, which claimed 179 lives. Yet, with key officials either impeached or resigning under the political pressure, the government’s ability to respond to such crises was severely compromised.
South Korea's Constitution mandates that the government be sovereign over the entire peninsula and responsible for the welfare of all its citizens. North Korea's involvement in the Ukraine-Russia conflict has led to a hundred Korean soldiers reportedly killed and almost 1,000 injured in the Kursk region. Yet, instead of addressing this mounting tragedy, Seoul has remained largely mute since the Dec. 3 martial law declaration.
Moments of crisis require not more polarization, but a return to cooperative governance. Acting President Choi supported a return to the parliamentary precedent of one appointment to the Constitutional Court from each major party and the third by consensus, instead of the unprecedented Democratic Party demand to control two of the three appointments. This sort of bipartisan compromise helps rebuild public trust in the judiciary while reaffirming a commitment to democratic principles over partisan interests.
The current political crisis, fueled by unchecked exercises of both executive and legislative powers, is an urgent reminder of the need for national unity and rational decision-making. We need to return to basic democratic norms and consider limits on both executive and legislative power, such as requiring formal Cabinet approval for a martial law declaration and a two-thirds majority for any impeachment motion.
Joseph Yi, Wondong Lee
Joseph Yi is an associate professor of political science at Hanyang University in Seoul. Wondong Lee is a research fellow at the Center for International Studies, Inha University. The views expressed here are the writers’ own. -- Ed.
