What does “overcoming insurrection” really mean?

Home > Opinion > Columns

What does “overcoming insurrection” really mean?

Published: 16 Jan. 2026, 00:01

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Cho Yoon-je

The author is a special appointment professor at the Graduate School of Economics at Yonsei University.

Korea is a country in which the role of government and the functions of the state tend to be relatively strong. This is rooted in its history, traditions and culture. Whether citizens openly support it or not, many still expect the state to step in and resolve matters both large and small. In truth, there are many problems that cannot be addressed without state intervention. One major reason is the lack of trust. Trust in state institutions and government is weak, but trust among citizens themselves is even weaker. Korea’s stock of social capital remains closer to that of a developing country than an advanced one.

Police barricades separate rival rallies for and against impeachment near Gwanghwamun in central Seoul on March 15, 2025. Pro-impeachment demonstrators gathered to the left, while anti-impeachment rallies took place to the right. [JANG JIN-YOUNG]

This can be seen in relations between large corporations and small firms, in how small business cooperatives actually operate and in the way self-employed merchants run their associations. Rather than relying on self-regulation or mutual cooperation, these groups focus on securing tax benefits and budget support from government agencies, often recruiting former officials to act as lobbyists. Even in the Dongdaemun commercial district, cases of neighboring shops copying new designs are common, yet merchant associations fail to establish and enforce their own rules. Though these places are called markets, they differ fundamentally from Western market cultures shaped by long guild traditions of self-regulation and cooperation. Labor unions show similar patterns. Unlike in Europe, cooperation across industries has been limited, while large-company unions have pursued exclusive interests. The result is one of the widest wage gaps between regular and nonregular workers and between large firms and small businesses among advanced economies.

Members of youth and student groups, including the National University Students’ Council for the Resignation of Yoon Suk Yeol, hold a press conference in front of Gyeongbok Palace in Seoul on March 25, 2025. [YONHAP]

This reality must be confronted honestly and used as the basis for designing and operating state institutions and policies. The problem is that the state’s capacity and effectiveness have been steadily weakening. Korea’s loss of economic momentum and drift toward prolonged stagnation are not unrelated. Under the current political system and power structure, national leadership struggles to pursue policies with a long-term horizon. Short-term visibility and political differentiation take precedence over lasting impact.

The flow of talent reflects this imbalance. Many of the country’s brightest young people seek stability by entering medical or law schools. Experienced elites gravitate toward major law firms, which have become repositories of top talent focused on litigation for large corporate clients and lobbying government agencies. Meanwhile, government and the public sector find it increasingly difficult to attract and retain capable people. Working hard in these areas no longer guarantees security or a stable future for oneself or one’s family. This is a path toward national decline.

Globally, the trend has shifted back toward an era of industrial policy. Alarmed by China’s rapid advance, the United States and Europe are actively pursuing industrial strategies of their own, while China continues its rise through long-term, state-led planning. In a world where alliances, values and ideals increasingly give way to raw national interest, competition among states has become a contest between systems of governance and the capacity of governments themselves.

Around this time last year, Korea was gripped by extreme turmoil. In the depths of winter, streets were filled with opposing protest groups, and there was real concern that the country could slide toward catastrophe. Many worried about Korea’s present and future, and calls poured in for changes to politics and state institutions. A year later, a new administration has taken office. It has moved quickly on tariff negotiations with the United States, pursued a pragmatic diplomatic line and rolled out measures to stimulate the economy. Political stability has largely returned. At the same time, broader discussions about political institutions and national governance have faded from view. Yet none of the underlying factors that produced today’s political, social and economic problems have been fundamentally resolved.

The episode of emergency martial law cannot be dismissed as the aberration of a single individual who happened to occupy the presidency. The special prosecutor investigations that followed over the past half year did little more than expose wrongdoing by those involved, including the former president and his spouse, and pursue legal accountability. There was no serious attempt to analyze how a country that considers itself advanced could arrive at such an absurd situation. Structural, institutional and social causes were largely ignored. It recalls the aftermath of the Sewol ferry disaster, when debate focused on assigning blame while deeper causes and meaningful reforms were left unresolved.

An anti-impeachment rally titled “Gwanghwamun National Rally Against the Impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol” is held along Sejong-daero on March 22, 2025. [KIM JONG-HO]

The martial law episode raised critical questions about how national leaders are groomed and selected, the structure of state power, the operation of political parties and the role and capacity of government. Addressing these issues is essential if the current administration’s claim of “overcoming insurrection” is to carry real meaning.

As global conditions grow more challenging, Korea must revisit fundamental questions about how to sustain national development. Serious debate should resume in the new year on leadership, power structures, party and electoral systems and government reform. Such discussions may feel burdensome early in a new administration, and there are reasons for caution. Yet these are issues that demand time, collective wisdom and deep deliberation. Nation-building in Korea is not complete. It remains an ongoing project.

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.