Home > Opinion > Columns

Yoon’s martial law was indeed ‘public enlightenment’

Published: 25 Feb. 2025, 00:01

Seo Seung-wook

The author is the editor of political, international, foreign and security news at the JoongAng Ilbo.

The Constitutional Court’s impeachment trial against President Yoon Suk Yeol is now approaching its final phase. While it is impossible to predict whether the court will uphold or dismiss the impeachment, one thing is certain: Korea stands at yet another historic inflection point. If the impeachment is upheld, a fierce backlash from pro-Yoon factions is inevitable. Yet, political momentum will quickly shift toward the presidential election, as rival parties vie for power in a new, high-stakes battle. Conversely, if the impeachment is dismissed and Yoon returns to office, the 60 percent of the public who supported his removal will be left in shock. The resulting political chaos could be unprecedented in scale.

President Yoon Suk Yeol attends the 10th hearing of impeachment trial at the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on Feb. 20. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

President Yoon brought himself to this political precipice through his disastrous decision to declare martial law. However, his entire presidency — spanning two years and nine months — has been a series of missteps and political turbulence. His transition from prosecutor to politician, and then to president, has been marked by struggles and stumbles. Many of the crises that have plagued his administration were self-inflicted, stemming from his own character flaws. He has consistently demonstrated a lack of awareness of the gravity of his public office and the responsibilities that come with it.

One particularly revealing moment came during the “Biden-Nallimyun” controversy early in his presidency. What shocked me most was not the diplomatic implications but rather Yoon’s use of vulgar language, referring to members of the National Assembly as “these bastards” in an offhand remark. Throughout his tenure, Yoon has insisted on doing and saying whatever he pleases, showing little regard for restraint or diplomacy. After his first and only press conference at the 100-day mark, he refused to hold another for nearly 20 months, until after his party’s devastating defeat in the general elections. Unlike his predecessors, who endured tough questions and scrutiny, Yoon deliberately engaged only with friendly media outlets. Even lower-level public servants understand the importance of fairness and balance — but not Yoon.

His double standards in personnel decisions were glaring. He was harsh and domineering toward his subordinates — former senior officials have described his outbursts as “humiliating like never before” — yet he was incredibly lenient when it came to his wife’s numerous scandals or his high school classmate’s failures as the interior minister during the Itaewon disaster. He also filled key government positions with his closest allies from his days as a prosecutor, leading to internal power struggles that ultimately boomeranged into a full-blown collapse of his administration. Watching this slow-motion implosion, even the public grew exhausted.

The martial law debacle has ignited widespread demands for constitutional reform. There is a growing realization that Korea’s winner-takes-all presidential system — where two opposing factions engage in a brutal fight to install a supreme leader — needs to change.

Even if a reckless and unfit individual were to seize absolute power, the country should not be forced into chaos. The current debate in political circles is centered on introducing checks and balances into the Constitution to prevent any single leader from destabilizing the nation.

Germany’s 1949 Basic Law, often cited as a model for coalition governance, was crafted on the principle that “there must never be another Hitler.” As Korea enters a new election cycle, it will be difficult for any candidate to ignore the mounting pressure for constitutional reform.

Throughout this crisis, Yoon’s legal team and supporters have argued — despite widespread public ridicule — that the martial law declaration was merely a “public enlightenment measure”. Their claim? That Yoon had no intention of enforcing military rule but simply wanted to “alert the public” to the dangers of opposition-led impeachments. Such an argument is insulting to the intelligence of citizens — a desperate attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

And yet, if this crisis ultimately leads to constitutional reform, this episode may ironically serve as a catalyst for a new political era. Of course, this would be the exact opposite of Yoon’s intentions, and his supporters’ claims of “public enlightenment” will ring hollow. But if this moment sparks a national conversation on constitutional change, one could argue that this martial law crisis has inadvertently functioned as “constitutional enlightenment” for the country.

Special forces deployed after President Yoon Suk Yeol's martial law declaration stand in front of the front gates of the National Assembly in Yeouido, western Seoul, on Dec. 4, 2024. [JOONGANG ILBO]

Having endured this ordeal, the Korean people deserve something in return. If this crisis pushes the country one step forward through constitutional reform, then perhaps something meaningful can emerge from this political catastrophe.

Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.