The Constitutional Court of Korea is set to deliver its historic verdict on the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol on Friday. Citizens on both sides — those who support the impeachment and those who oppose it — are holding their breath. The outcome is about more than just Yoon's removal or reinstatement; it will define the future of South Korean democracy and the everyday life of people in Korea. Regardless of the verdict, in the short term, the Republic of Korea will likely experience more turbulence as it searches for a new path for the upper class and a more democratic nation.
Yet, before focusing solely on the ruling's immediate aftermath, reflecting on the lessons already revealed will be meaningful because otherwise, we might forget much of what we have gone through since Yoon's Dec. 3 night of insurrection. What Korea has gone through leads us to consider six crucial points about the current state and future of its democracy.
The crisis unveiled two faces of Korean democracy: its fragility and its resilience. The fact that Yoon, as sitting president, attempted a coup, despite the support of much of his ruling People Power Party and nearly 40 percent of the population, according to one figure, shocked the nation. This situation is not merely scandalous politically, but it was also a revelation of the structural weaknesses of Korea as a democracy. At the same time, the system's resilience was clearly shown in the near-immediate annulling of Yoon's illegal martial law declaration, the lawful arrest and criminal prosecution of the president, and the absence of large-scale violence during the process. We must accept both realities. It is not a matter of choosing between the two, but recognizing that both exist. We should acknowledge our weak points and work to supplement the democratic system while also taking pride in Korea's democratic capacity to overcome absurd reactionaryism.
The most alarming aspect of this insurrection incident was the deepening of political polarization. Despite the president’s unconstitutional actions, members of the Cabinet, ruling party lawmakers and a significant segment of the public continued to support him. For some, common sense evaporated, and rational judgment was replaced by tribal loyalty. South Korean politics today is governed less by reason and more by entrenched factionalism. We are dealing not just with political polarization but with the phenomenon of political tribalism, where loyalty to one's group outweighs any commitment to democracy or national interests. Recognizing this reality is essential if Korea wishes to escape the trap of democratic regression.
Observing such excessive polarization, a troubling misconception persists among many citizens who oppose Yoon's impeachment. They tend to see Yoon's coup attempt as a decisive blow against his political adversaries, as they are not his targets. However, history warns us otherwise. In times of coups or authoritarianism, the first and most frequent victims are not political enemies but rather dissenters within the regime's own ranks. Those who are ideologically loyal but not sufficiently obedient often face the harshest repression. This pattern has been repeated throughout history. Overreliance on partisan narratives creates not safety but vulnerability — even for those within the regime's support base. So, the best option for everybody on nationwide issues should be based on common sense and a rational approach -- not partisan calculation.
South Korea's current political polarization did not arise in a vacuum. It is closely tied to decades of neoliberal globalization. Since the end of the Cold War about three decades ago, neoliberal trends have deepened economic inequality, neutralized efforts toward political correctness and weakened community ties. Significantly, it diminished the importance of borders and strengthened the sense of loyalty to personal interest networks. While freedom of expression has expanded, it has also devolved into an unrestrained space where hate speech and exclusionary rhetoric have become normalized. Neoliberalism, paradoxically, fostered both market-driven individualism and political polarization. It might seem "natural" because there is no reason to refrain from making other people uncomfortable anymore and simply concentrate on one's personal gains, as there might not seem to be any common enemies outside the country anymore in this globalized world. The Yoon crisis exposed how these structural conditions have made South Korean society more susceptible to egotistical tendencies and extreme political divisions. Any democratic recovery must include a serious reckoning with these root socioeconomic conditions. So, we need to address these side effects of neoliberalism and try to create an updated version of liberalism.
Yoon's coup attempt has reignited longstanding concerns over the control of the military, including the meddling of some retired military generals and officials. The revelation of Yoon's martial law plans and the apparent involvement — or at least the passivity — of key military institutions highlight the fragile nature of civilian oversight in Korea. In a democratic society, the military must remain politically neutral. Yet, some military units have betrayed the people’s trust and shown they are still prone to political manipulation. Korea must now take substantial measures to secure the military's neutrality under civilian control and implement concrete institutional reforms to safeguard democratic principles. However, such measures should not be merely one-sided punishment of all military elements, but also involve the precise correction of flawed elements and encouragement of the young soldiers who refused to follow unconstitutional orders.
The prosecution and judiciary were also deeply implicated in this crisis. The prosecution, which ought to be politically neutral, functioned as a shield for Yoon's presidential power, while elements within the judiciary showed signs of political bias. Korea has witnessed the distortion of the rule of law into a tool for control. Without genuine prosecutorial reform and a judiciary committed to independence, Korean democracy will remain vulnerable to future crises. The restoration of democratic legitimacy requires that these institutions regain public trust through deep and lasting reform.
Yoon's insurrection represents perhaps the gravest challenge in the history of South Korean democracy. Yet, the crisis also revealed the endurance of democratic values, the maturity of civil society and the necessity for fundamental reform. These six points are not merely postcrisis reflections but indispensable tasks for South Korea's democratic evolution. Korea must candidly address its vulnerabilities, take pride in its resilience and move decisively to reform its political and institutional foundations. Only then can Korea truly move beyond this embarrassing insurrection by a sitting president and build a stronger and more mature democracy.
Wang Son-taek
Wang Son-taek is an adjunct professor at Sogang University. He is a former diplomatic correspondent at YTN and a former research associate at Yeosijae. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. — Ed.
