On December 3rd 2024, South Korea’s President, Yoon Suk-yeol declared martial law after facing political challenges in the country’s National Assembly. Sanghee Park writes that the declaration, which was reversed only hours later by the National Assembly, shows how extreme political polarization – as many are concerned about in the US – can threaten democracy. She argues that citizen engagement, in combination with public bureaucrats who will “do the right thing”, can shore up democracy during times of crisis.
South Korea’s democracy, once celebrated as a model for its peaceful transition from military dictatorship in the 1980s, is currently experiencing a severe test. President Yoon Suk-yeol’s declaration of martial law on December 3rd, which brought back traumatizing memories of the practice for many Koreans, led to his impeachment by the National Assembly after ten days of political chaos. While the full consequences of this event are still unfolding, it highlights both the fragility and resilience of democracy, offering critical lessons on governance and democracy for the United States and elsewhere.
Leadership crisis and the fragility of democracy
At the heart of this turmoil lies a leadership crisis when leaders exploit authority, distrust institutions, and bypass democratic norms and due process. President Yoon’s first decree under martial law targeted the institutions fundamental to liberal democracy, such as the National Assembly, the National Election Commission, and the press. It reveals that democracy can falter at the hands of elected leaders, and the presidential system could be vulnerable to abuse of power.
Driven by deep-rooted distrust and strong egos, the President surrounded himself with loyalists from the outset. His administration was filled with individuals from his close-knit circle, often dubbed the “republic of prosecutors,” defended as merit-based. Representation, inclusiveness, and gender equality were dismissed as lost causes, while he turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to criticism within and outside the government. The President framed dissent as a threat to national security, sought to delegitimize election outcomes, and exploited terror, anger, and fear to further personal and political goals. Such leaders, mirroring tactics of authoritarian regimes, could act recklessly and jeopardize the system they are meant to protect.
Image credit: mujjingun at reddit, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
The cost of extremism: Polarization threatens democracy
South Korea’s political crisis illustrates how extreme polarization destabilizes democratic governance, a concern that many commentators have expressed about the United States in recent years. South Korea’s political polarization has deepened over decades, fueled by extremist rhetoric and zero-sum politics that render compromise nearly impossible. President Yoon accused the opposition-controlled National Assembly of being “anti-state forces” and a “legislative dictatorship” and blamed the National Election Commission for alleged fraud in his party’s electoral defeat.
Severely polarized politics also sets the stage for constitutional crises and democratic backsliding—even breakdown—through rallying supporters to storm government institutions or deploying military forces to block legislative bodies. Polarization threatens democracy because it weakens the capacity for dialogue and creates an environment where drastic, anti-democratic measures become plausible.
Citizen engagement as a pillar of democracy
Martial law was reversed within six hours on December 3rd because of the swift action of the National Assembly, which was made possible by the support of engaged citizens. Lawmakers overcame significant fear and obstacles, even scaling walls to enter the National Assembly close to midnight. Citizens gathered in solidarity near the legislative building, fending off military forces and demanding the reversal of martial law and the President’s resignation. These voluntary collective actions show the vital role of civic engagement in preserving democracy. This moment reminds us that democracy thrives not only through laws and institutions but also through active, informed citizenry committed to civic duty.
South Koreans are not strangers to public gatherings, whether to protest political issues or celebrate national events. In 2016, the candlelight protests led to the impeachment of then-President Park Geun-hye over corruption and the abuse of power. This time, younger generations have taken to the street with K-pop light sticks and a festive vibe. These gatherings serve as modern agoras, where citizens come together to express shared values and demand accountability. Through these social interactions, citizens gain a deeper understanding of the Constitution, democracy, and Korean history.
“Kriegsrecht – After martial law” (CC BY-NC 2.0) by Jens-Olaf
Bureaucratic accountability vs. administrative evil
The crisis also highlights the delicate balance between bureaucratic accountability and the risk of administrative evil. Bureaucrats play a crucial role in maintaining democratic integrity but may inadvertently contribute to societal harm and injustice by blindly following orders. As German-American historian and philosopher, Hannah Arendt, warned of the “banality of evil,” administrators become complicit in acts of injustice through thoughtless compliance. This creates significant ethical dilemmas for bureaucrats navigating the tension between “doing things right” and “doing the right thing.”
During the crisis, some public servants demonstrated bureaucratic responsibility to the public, not to their immediate superior or even the President, by resisting and delaying the execution of illegal directives. For instance, military personnel deployed to block the National Assembly deliberately acted slowly and passively, which allowed critical time for legislative members to convene. Considering the moral and legal implications of the orders and their actions, these individuals collectively mitigated severe political hazards and averted further disasters at a pivotal moment. Upcoming litigation will scrutinize the fine line between following orders and upholding bureaucratic accountability. Demonstrating the latter requires clear evidence of the actions of resistance or proactive measures they took to prevent or reduce harm.
Democratic resilience and the importance of administrative capacity and the rule of law
Since the important debate between political scientists Carl J. Friedrich and Herman Finer in the 1940s, the interplay between political control and administrative discretion has remained central to discussions on accountability. While politics and administration are inseparable, safeguarding the integrity and impartiality of public bureaucracy is critical for maintaining administrative capacity. As long as they remain functional and above politics, administrative institutions could serve as “a bulwark against authoritarian control.”
Historically, bureaucratic institutions have often been targeted for bureau-bashing by politicians seeking to shift blame for policy failures, government inefficiency, and incompetence. The narrative often unfairly targets unelected yet accountable bureaucrats, particularly those in the electoral administration. Yoon’s actions posed a grave threat to democratic governance by undermining the rule of law and the checks and balances fundamental to a functional democracy. Furthermore, such actions increase the risk of political violence, administrative vacuum, and governance disruptions, ultimately imposing significant costs on the country.
Preserving administrative capacity in an era of political uncertainty
South Korea’s recent political turmoil is a sobering reminder that democracy is not self-sustaining and remains inherently vulnerable, even in well-established ones. It demands constant vigilance and balance to prevent backsliding into authoritarianism, political extremism, and abuses of power. Yet, amid this crisis, the resilience of democracy shines through. This moment highlights the importance of ethical responsibility, a robust and reflective administrative state, and active citizenship in upholding democratic governance in an era of increasing global political uncertainty.
- Subscribe to LSE USAPP’s email newsletter to receive a weekly article roundup.
- Please read our comments policy before commenting.
- Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics.
- Shortened URL for this post: https://wp.me/p3I2YF-eJb
