Home > Opinion > Columns

Political challenges exposed by the martial law

Published: 05 Dec. 2024, 19:57

Chang Duk-jin
The author is a sociology professor at Seoul National University.

The persistent friction was bound to cause a breakdown eventually, but we never imagined an epic collapse of such scope. The extreme polarization of the two main rivalling parties since the launch of the Yoon administration has pushed political tensions to the boiling point. If stress passes a certain point, it causes a rupture in the weakest area. Lee Jae-myung, head of the main opposition Democratic Party (DP), was believed to be the disquieted party as he faces one ruling after another in multiple legal cases that have dragged on. If a guilty verdict is confirmed in any of the cases ahead of the presidential election in 2027, he must bid goodbye to his political career. He was excruciatingly up against a battle with time.

Then came a sudden and bewildering turnaround with the late-night fiasco of President Yoon Suk Yeol declaring martial law. Through the impulsive act, he more or less confessed that he was the fragile one who could no longer withstand his circumstances. It is astounding to discover how weak a person with 27 years of experience as a prosecutor could be.

As the DP suspects, the stupefying choice could not have merely stemmed from Yoon’s desperation to shield his wife from a special probe. The country’s top combatant military troops were deployed to the National Assembly only to withdraw within hours, leaving behind broken windows and a mess. Martial law is hardly an appropriate instrument if “uprooting antistate forces” was the true reason behind the emergency declaration.

Even Park Chung Hee, who induced a military coup for the same reason of resurrecting a country on the brink of breaking up, would not have agreed to martial law if he were alive this day.

What awaits the ill-fated president who fiddled with the last-resort card of martial law for six hours? He would at least be forced out of the driver’s seat, given the distrust from the opposition and public, even if he avoids the worst of stepping down or getting impeached.

The mass resignation of the presidential staff and cabinet may not go through, as it would be hard to find replacements in the lame-duck administration. Whether he can finish his term depends on the intensity of civilian protest rallies.

The main opposition fighting with time will want to advance the election schedule as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the governing People Power Party (PPP) is pushed to an awkward situation of defending a president that it wishes to oust from the party. Thanks to the disastrous gambling by the conservative president, the future of the conservative population has become bleaker on top of already-skewed demographics.

We must reflect on the accumulated problems of Korean politics accentuated by the latest debacle. Since democratic elections have been institutionalized, a political novice has had the upper hand in winning the candidacy to bid for presidency. Candidates Lee Hoi-chang, Roh Moo-hyun, Lee Myung-bak, Ahn Cheol-soo, Moon Jae-in and Yoon all rose to sudden stardom. Only Park Geun-hye had been an exception, bearing the innate advantage of being the offspring of legendary strongman Park Chung Hee.

Political apathy can breed bias for a new face. But we cannot go on with the sad habit of adding dislike from the disillusion of picking a political rookie. An unprepared leader would be unfamiliar with the changes on the international stage and the policy recipes right for our needs, not to mention where to find the people who know better. It is how we have seen ill-baked policies like slashing the research and development (R&D) budget or increasing medical school quotas. It also explains the recruitment of pseudo-intellectuals who spend more time in front of cameras than study rooms and resort to a questionable power broker to find candidates. Yoon could not have made such a colossal pratfall if he had reliable experts around him to guide and advise him.

Another lesson is that existing political establishments of late 1980s have outlived their service. The biggest drawback is the simple plurality system. The presidential address declaring martial law held some truth. The main opposition has been wielding a dictator-like power with its majority number of seats, constraining normalcy in state management. It is obvious to the public that the exploitation of majority’s power primarily served to protect the party’s head. It is just that the president lacked the democratic conviction and discipline to solve the matter though dialogue and compromise.

The main opposition was granted such enormous power owing to the electoral system, in which one more vote in a constituency ensures a legislative seat. The DP was able to dominate the National Assembly with a vote winning rate of 50.5 percent while the other 45 percent of votes were wasted. How that dominant opposition legislative power collided head-on with the mighty executive authority of the president who won the office by a threadbare margin of 0.73 percent is the essence of the unfortunate brush with martial law. We can no longer afford to defer the adoption of an election system to decentralize and diffuse the power of elected office.

We are stalemated at a crossroad. One path leads to populism and the other points back to the past. What choice can we make?

Translation by the Korea JoongAng Daily.