It was a peaceful night in Korea until South Korean President, Yoon Suk Yeol, surprised the nation with a declaration of martial law on Dec. 3. The president justified the declaration by saying that the nation was under the imminent threat of “pro-North Korean anti-state forces.” Shortly after, President Yoon appointed General Park An-su as the Martial Law Commander. General Park issued a decree that banned political activities and limited the freedom of the press, association, and assembly. As soon as martial law was announced, members of the National Assembly in Korea gathered in the National Assembly in order to nullify martial law. However, Yoon deployed military units to blockade the building, break the windows, enter the building to arrest the lawmakers, and ultimately suspend the vote. Many congressmen, including the Speaker of the National Assembly, Woo Won-shik, climbed the fences to enter the building, with citizens also gathering in front at the entrance to protest, all condemning President Yoon for his actions. In such a pressing situation, the members of the National Assembly unanimously voted to revoke martial law, and the President ended up accepting the decision.

President Yoon later described his declaration as a “warning against the ‘anti-state’ opposition party” and an “attempt to save the nation.” Previously, Yoon had, in fact, struggled politically with an opposition-dominated parliament under gridlock; the opposition party consistently disapproved and cut down the budgets of his policies, even going so far as to initiate several impeachments of key members of his cabinet. However, Yoon also exercised veto multiple times. Nevertheless, this is clearly not enough justification to declare martial law. Is it not common sense that political problems should be resolved with politics? Declaring martial law, though a political action, seems to be motivated by personal interest, and is a very extreme measure that limits citizens’ freedom. The South Korean Constitution states that the president can declare martial law only “in times of war, armed conflict or similar national emergency.” Was South Korea in a time of war? With the ongoing tensions with North Korea, the answer is technically yes, but not quite so. Was South Korea in a time of armed conflict? No. Was South Korea in a time of similar national emergency? No. While limiting freedom of the press, assembly, and association is legal under martial law, the Constitution still states that the president cannot dissolve the National Assembly and must lift martial law when the National Assembly passes the proposal. His decree and deployment of troops to the National Assembly were undoubtedly unconstitutional and even implied a self-coup.

There are several questions that arise from such a situation - how were the members of the National Assembly able to void the president’s decree so quickly? And how did citizens gather so quickly at midnight to protest? The fact of the matter is that this is not the first time – nor the second or third – that martial law has been imposed in the history of South Korea. With the exception of times of war and actual emergencies – such as the assassination of the president in 1979 – martial law has been abused to suppress dissent and consolidate powers in the past. As a result, South Korea has experienced three dictatorships, two of which were military. These regimes, operating under the guise of martial laws, violently suppressed pro-democracy protests, resulting even in the deaths of hundreds of civilians.

Through decades of struggle, South Korea finally achieved full democracy in 1987. Since then, the country has become one of the most economically and socially developed countries in the world. Despite this progress, President Yoon, through his actions, has destroyed historical accomplishments, undermining the democratic freedom earned by citizens’ blood, sweat, and tears. He has shattered the spirit of the Constitution and reminded the nation of its authoritarian past. However this time, the citizens of South Korea did not sit back and idly watch this unconstitutional and illegal declaration. The protest started on Dec. 3 and continues until today, condemning President Yoon and advocating for his impeachment.

In democracy, the power of the state comes from the people. The representatives of the people should be able to voice their opinions. Under the rule of law, all people are accountable to the same laws. It does not matter if the person is a lawmaker or a president. Under the constitution, the separation of powers ensures the independence of judiciary, legislative, and executive power from each other. These branches of government prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. By deploying armed forces to obstruct the National Assembly, it is inarguable that Yoon attempted to challenge all of these values and in the process, committed a serious violation of the democratic institutions within the Constitution. Yoon declaring martial law could have been for no other reason but to oppress citizens and the opposition, ignoring all the legal procedures and democratic institutions. This is an obliteration of democracy.

Undoubtedly, President Yoon must be held accountable for the current situation. It is unclear whether Yoon will be able to run the national affairs, since he has greatly lost the support from the people, recording an approval rating of just 11%. Furthermore, numerous public officials are resigning to express their disappointment. Ministers and commanders involved in the situation are stepping down or being suspended from office for investigation. This not only shows President Yoon’s cabinet losing trust in him but also shows him causing major problems within government administrations. If there should be an event of emergency – one where the declaration of martial law would be legitimate – sorting out the issue would be extremely difficult in the current state. Nevertheless, President Yoon is still sitting in office claiming that the opposition is “dancing the sword dance of madness.” He has asserted that he is going to “fight till the end.” Considering that Yoon has no capability of running the government in the ongoing situation, he must either step down or be impeached. Both the ruling party and the opposition party, despite previous clashes, must cooperate to overcome this difficult situation, normalizing state affairs and punishing those who did wrong with due process.

N.B. This piece was written on Dec. 12. Since then, the proposal for President Yoon’s impeachment has been passed and the government now awaits the decision of the constitutional court.