South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol is under intense political and public scrutiny following a controversial declaration of martial law, sparking a political crisis that could culminate in his impeachment. The short-lived proclamation, which saw heavily armed soldiers deployed to Seoul’s streets, reminded many South Koreans of the country’s painful history under military-backed dictatorships.
Parliament responded swiftly, unanimously canceling the martial law within hours. Empowered by this success and backed by mounting public outrage, opposition parties are now pushing to impeach Yoon. This article explores the political and historical significance of the current situation and its potential ramifications for South Korea.
Will President Yoon Be Impeached?
The push for President Yoon’s impeachment is gaining momentum, with opposition parties planning a parliamentary vote as early as Saturday. To succeed, the motion requires support from two-thirds of the National Assembly, meaning some members of Yoon’s conservative People Power Party (PPP) would need to vote in favor of impeachment.
In a surprising twist, Han Dong-hun, the leader of the PPP, has called for Yoon’s powers to be suspended immediately. Han cited intelligence suggesting that during the brief martial law, Yoon had ordered the defense counterintelligence commander to arrest key political figures on accusations of “anti-state activities.” This revelation has strengthened the opposition’s case, as it paints the president’s actions as an overreach of his constitutional powers.
The impeachment process, if initiated, will require Yoon to step down temporarily while the Constitutional Court deliberates on whether he should be permanently removed. Prime Minister Han Duck-soo would assume presidential duties in the interim. However, the Constitutional Court’s decision may take time, as it currently has three vacancies that could delay proceedings.
Understanding Martial Law in South Korea
South Korea’s constitution grants the president authority to declare martial law in situations of extreme national emergency, such as wartime or similar crises. Martial law allows the president to deploy the military, suspend civil liberties, and temporarily override government agencies and courts.
However, the constitution also empowers the National Assembly to revoke such a declaration with a majority vote, a safeguard against misuse of power. This provision was exercised immediately after Yoon’s proclamation, with lawmakers scaling walls to evade military blockades and ensure a quorum for their emergency session. The Assembly’s unanimous vote to nullify martial law demonstrated a rare moment of unity in South Korea’s polarized political landscape.
Critics argue that Yoon’s martial law declaration far exceeded constitutional limits. The impeachment motion alleges that his actions—deploying troops to surround the National Assembly and suspending political party activities—constituted a coup attempt rather than a legitimate response to a national crisis.
President Yoon’s Justification: An “Anti-State” Plot
In his late-night announcement on Tuesday, Yoon justified martial law as a necessary measure to eliminate “anti-state forces” allegedly plotting rebellion. He accused opposition parties of supporting North Korea, invoking the specter of the rival state as a destabilizing force.
However, Yoon provided no concrete evidence to support these claims, leading to widespread skepticism. Critics argue that Yoon’s focus on North Korea reflects a broader strategy of deflecting attention from his domestic challenges.
Since taking office in 2022, Yoon has struggled to pass his agenda in an opposition-controlled parliament. Corruption allegations involving him and his wife have further eroded his popularity, fueling protests and strikes across the country. Many believe the martial law declaration was a desperate attempt to consolidate power amid these growing pressures.
A History of Martial Law in South Korea
Martial law has a dark and traumatic history in South Korea, often associated with the country’s authoritarian past. During the military dictatorships that followed the Korean War (1950-1953), leaders frequently used martial law to suppress dissent, jail political opponents, and maintain control.
Park Chung-hee’s Coup and Dictatorship (1961-1979)
General Park Chung-hee led a coup in 1961, deploying thousands of troops into Seoul. Over his nearly 20-year rule, Park used martial law multiple times to quash protests and silence critics. His authoritarian reign ended abruptly when he was assassinated in 1979 by his own intelligence chief.Chun Doo-hwan’s Coup and Crackdown (1979-1987)
After Park’s death, Major General Chun Doo-hwan staged another coup, deploying tanks and troops into the capital. In 1980, he orchestrated a brutal crackdown on a pro-democracy uprising in Gwangju, killing at least 200 people. These events remain a symbol of the fight for democracy in South Korea.Democratic Transition (1987)
Massive protests in 1987 forced Chun’s government to hold direct presidential elections, marking the beginning of South Korea’s transition to democracy. However, the scars of martial law and military rule linger in the collective memory of the nation.
Given this historical context, Yoon’s declaration of martial law has alarmed citizens and political leaders alike, evoking fears of a return to authoritarianism.
Public and Political Backlash
The backlash against Yoon has been swift and widespread. Thousands of protesters have taken to the streets of Seoul, demanding his resignation. Labor groups, including the powerful Korean Metal Workers’ Union, have launched strikes in solidarity.
The political opposition has been equally forceful. Leaders of the Democratic Party have labeled Yoon’s actions as an “unconstitutional rebellion,” framing the impeachment push as a fight to preserve South Korea’s democracy. Even members of Yoon’s own party have distanced themselves, highlighting the gravity of the situation.
This growing dissent underscores the precariousness of Yoon’s position. With his approval ratings already weakened by scandals, the martial law debacle may mark a tipping point in his presidency.
The Road Ahead
The impeachment motion against Yoon is expected to be voted on by Sunday. If it passes, it will move to the Constitutional Court, where a six-vote majority is required to remove the president from office.
The opposition is likely to expedite the process of filling judicial vacancies, aiming to ensure a swift resolution. However, political analysts warn that prolonged uncertainty could deepen divisions and undermine public trust in South Korea’s institutions.
In the meantime, Prime Minister Han Duck-soo would oversee the government, tasked with maintaining stability during a potentially volatile period.
Implications for South Korea
The current crisis highlights deep-seated challenges in South Korea’s political system, including polarization, corruption, and the lingering legacy of authoritarian rule. It also raises questions about the balance of power between the presidency and parliament and the safeguards needed to prevent abuses of executive authority.
For ordinary South Koreans, the events of this week have reignited painful memories of the past while underscoring the fragility of democracy. As the nation watches the impeachment proceedings unfold, there is a palpable sense of hope that the crisis will strengthen, rather than weaken, the country’s democratic institutions.
President Yoon Suk Yeol's martial law declaration has exposed the fragility of South Korea's democratic institutions. As lawmakers prepare to vote on his impeachment, the stakes are high not only for Yoon but also for the nation’s democracy.
This moment serves as a reminder of South Korea’s hard-won freedoms and the enduring responsibility to protect them. Regardless of the outcome, the events of this week will likely leave a lasting impact on the country’s political landscape.
