Martial Law and the Fragility of Democracy: Lessons from South Korea
On December 3, 2024, at 10:30 PM (KST), South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law, marking the nation’s first such decree since 1980. The announcement triggered widespread outrage and resistance across the country. By 1:00 AM (KST), the National Assembly convened an emergency session, with 190 of its 300 members in attendance. In a unanimous vote, the Assembly passed a resolution demanding the immediate termination of martial law. Under Article 77 of the South Korean Constitution, the president is obligated to comply with such a resolution if passed by a majority of the legislative body. Compliance became evident within minutes; by 1:12 AM (KST), soldiers stationed at the third gate of the National Assembly began withdrawing. Outside the legislative complex, approximately 2,000 citizens gathered in defiance, chanting patriotic slogans such as “Long live the Republic of Korea!”.
Al Jazeera
Though unprecedented in modern South Korean history, the declaration of martial law was not entirely unexpected. Speculation about President Yoon’s undemocratic inclinations had been mounting. Public approval of his administration had plummeted due to dissatisfaction with economic inequality, corruption allegations, and contentious policies. The opposition-controlled 21st National Assembly exacerbated tensions by creating a legislative gridlock that blocked Yoon’s agenda. Facing mounting frustrations, Yoon accused opposition leaders of attempting an “insurgency” aimed at overthrowing South Korea’s democracy. He went as far as suggesting, without evidence, that the opposition sympathized with North Korea, the nation’s most prominent adversary. This rhetoric, though incendiary, appeared more aligned with a strategy to justify extreme measures, and did not accurately portray the political opposition.
The relationship between political desperation and authoritarian tendencies has been extensively studied. Niccolò Machiavelli, in The Prince, famously argued that while a ruler should ideally be both loved and feared, “it is safer to be feared than loved when a choice must be made.” In moments of crisis, leaders often resort to fear to maintain control, even at the expense of public trust. Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan, defends the use of authoritarian measures during emergencies, asserting that preserving order and security outweighs temporary suspensions of freedom.
More contemporary scholars, such as Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt in How Democracies Die, caution that authoritarian tendencies often arise from political desperation. Leaders who feel cornered may exploit crises to consolidate power, erode democratic norms, and weaken opposition forces. President Yoon’s declaration of martial law reflects these dynamics, illustrating how a lack of public support and legislative victories can push leaders toward undemocratic measures.
However, to fully understand the implications of Yoon’s actions, it is essential to consider potential justifications. Advocates of martial law might argue that extraordinary measures are necessary in times of perceived national crisis, such as an alleged “insurgency.” While such actions may appear defensible in theory, their legitimacy depends on substantive evidence of the crisis, which was glaringly absent in this case. Instead, Yoon’s claims seemed more rooted in political convenience than in genuine national security concerns.
South Korea’s swift response to this crisis underscores the importance of strong institutions and active citizenry in preserving democracy. The unanimous resolution passed by the National Assembly demonstrates the critical role of legislative checks and balances in curbing executive overreach. Likewise, the thousands of citizens who gathered outside the National Assembly exemplify the power of civic engagement in defending democratic principles.
The implications of this event extend beyond South Korea, offering valuable lessons for democracies worldwide. Balancing emergency powers with the preservation of civil liberties remains a perennial challenge. For example, the United States Constitution, under Article I, Section 9, permits the suspension of a trail for a convicted felon (or formally known as habeas corpus) during times of rebellion or invasion. This power, while rarely invoked, has been historically controversial. During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to suppress dissent and maintain national unity, a decision that faced significant legal and ethical scrutiny. Similarly, Canada’s Emergencies Act allows the federal government to take extraordinary measures during national crises, provided parliamentary oversight remains intact. This law was controversially employed during the 2022 “Freedom Convoy” protests against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s COVID-19 mandates. The invocation sparked debates about whether the government’s actions were proportional to the threat posed by the protests.
South Korea’s experience demonstrates the fragility of democratic systems when confronted with political desperation. The swift and unified response from both the public and the National Assembly highlights the vital role that robust institutions and engaged citizens play in safeguarding democracy from authoritarian overreach. This moment also raises broader questions about the responsibilities of elected leaders and the boundaries of executive power. Scholars and political experts, both historically and in contemporary contexts, have consistently noted the dangerous correlation between desperation and tyranny. While emergency powers may be necessary in exceptional circumstances, their misuse risks undermining the very democratic principles they aim to protect.
In this instance, South Korean citizens and political stakeholders stood firm, actively defending their democracy and liberty. Their patriotic rallying cry of “Long live the Republic of Korea” serves as a powerful testament to the enduring spirit of democracy and the collective will to preserve freedom. As democracies worldwide grapple with arguably similar challenges, South Korea’s example serves as both a cautionary tale and an inspiration, reminding us of the ongoing struggle to balance authority with accountability in the pursuit of justice and liberty.
Jacob Clarkin (he/him) is a second-year Politics major, Philosophy minor, and lower-year intern at Political Digest.