Is this Machiavelli reborn?

Home > Opinion > Columns

Is this Machiavelli reborn?

Published: 24 Nov. 2025, 00:01

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Choi Hoon

The author is a senior columnist at the JoongAng Ilbo.

The government launched the Constitutional Order Reform Task Force on Friday, with the stated aim of identifying public officials who allegedly abetted insurrection. The stance of Democratic Party lawmaker Park Kyoon-taek, a former high-ranking prosecutor, drew attention. Asked what constitutes assisting insurrection, he pointed to officials who cooperated when former President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law.

Yoon Chang-ryeol, head of the Office for Government Policy Coordination, poses for a group photo with members of the advisory panel for the Constitutional Order Reform Task Force after their appointment ceremony at the Government Complex Seoul on Nov. 21. From left are Yoon Tae-beom, former public administration professor at Korea National Open University, Yoon Chang-ryeol, Kim Jeong-min, attorney at Open People Law Firm, and Lim Tae-hoon, director of the Center for Military Human Rights Korea. [YONHAP]

“There must have been correctional officials who helped check for empty cells at prisons,” he said. “One bureau director at the Ministry of Justice was known among subordinates for enjoying such cooperation or for expressing concern whenever bad news emerged for Yoon. If such officials thrive, what subordinate would accept it, and who would try to correct unlawful situations by the state going forward?”

The Office of the Prime Minister said it will request the voluntary submission of personal cell phones for investigation, and may consider suspension from duty or criminal referral for those who refuse.

People Power Party Chair Jang Dong-hyeok criticizes the Constitutional Order Reform Task Force’s plan to investigate public officials allegedly involved in insurrection while showing past remarks by President Lee Jae Myung during a supreme council meeting at the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul, on Nov. 17. [YONHAP]

Summarized, public officials who expressed concern when misfortune befell former President Yoon, or left digital traces on their devices, may now face potential removal. Yet public reactions have been less formal. When seeing recent photos of Yoon or his wife Kim Keon Hee looking worn down, many have remarked, “I disliked them when they held power, but I feel a bit sorry now,” “He looks gaunt, maybe his diabetes has worsened,” “Is he suffering withdrawal because he cannot drink?” or “Could he be contemplating something extreme?”

Are these expressions of empathy or simply idle curiosity? Hard to say, but officials may choose caution, fearing complaints or anonymous accusations. Some may feel pressure to delete files on their phones.

At the same time, the ruling party referred 18 senior prosecutors to the prosecution on charges of insubordination, following accusations that they resisted government directives. This pressure follows comments telling prosecutors to “leave quickly if they plan to resign” and begins legislative efforts to allow their dismissal like ordinary civil servants, or even demotion of senior prosecutors to junior ranks.

No one disputes that political maneuvering within the prosecution under past administrations created this backdrop. One Democratic Party lawmaker argued that prosecutors remained silent in March when the decision to arrest Yoon was canceled and the appeal was dropped, suggesting selective defiance. The longstanding practice of sidelining key officials of previous administrations has become routine, regardless of which party holds power. The cycle in which governing and opposition parties trade blows after changing positions has become entrenched among political elites. As the line between authority and coercion blurs, public sensitivity to abuse of power also fades, creating a deeper crisis.

There was once a thinker who argued that politics must operate with ruthless clarity, even at the cost of criticism: Machiavelli. Rejecting the moral idealism of Confucius and Mencius, he insisted on stark political realism. “Humans are ungrateful, fickle, deceitful and hypocritical," he wrote. "They more easily betray those they love than those they fear. A ruler is safer feared than loved. Love is severed when interests change, but fear rooted in punishment cannot be abandoned. Those who seek to be good in all matters are ruined by those who are not. In power, results alone matter. Between mercy and cruelty, choose cruelty.” Such conclusions may appear reasonable from the perspective of someone who holds power.

Machiavelli also stressed method. “Those who gain power through fortune or another’s help must quickly build a new foundation. Fortune is fickle. Destroy those who threaten the ruler, reshape the old order through force and deception, and expand one's own base. Make the rich poor and the poor rich. Tear down existing cities and resettle populations in new ones to erase prior orders.” The ruling bloc’s aggressive campaign to purge alleged insurrectionists, dismantle the prosecution, reshape the Supreme Court and pressure the real estate sector resembles this formula in its severity. Calls for moderation, cooperation and integration feel almost antiquated in comparison.

Portrait of Niccolo Machiavelli by Santi di Tito. [WIKIPEDIA]

Yet the solution lies in truths Machiavelli never knew. His world preceded democracy. Modern presidents serve five-year terms, limiting the effectiveness of rule by fear. Public officials worry more about future prosecutions for abuse of power. Now even expressions of concern can be grounds for punishment. Many may choose to remain silent for the remaining four and a half years.

Machiavelli also mistook means for ends. Seeking employment as a strategist, he treated the ruler’s survival as the sole purpose. In a democracy, the goal is the nation’s long-term stability and prosperity. The enormous conflicts unleashed by efforts to impose a new order must serve democratic ends, not the protection of those who govern.

Most of all, he overlooked the cycle of violence and retribution. Coercion imposed without consent only returns in kind. No one can permanently eliminate opponents. The clearest example may be Yoon Suk Yeol himself, now facing repercussions from methods he once used. All power must be exercised with restraint, before force becomes the default.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.