Unlock Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, editor of the FT, picks her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
It will go down as one of the shortest introductions of a state of emergency in history. Only six hours passed between South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol’s declaration of military rule on Tuesday night and its subsequent reversal. Despite deep divisions, the nation quickly united to reject the president’s decision. The parliament unanimously rejected it while civilians peacefully protested in the streets and the Korean media continued to criticize it. So far, South Korea has withstood the shocking stress test of its democracy. For a key Western ally in the Indo-Pacific region, seen as an example of its remarkable economic transformation and political liberalization, it is encouraging that democracy has shown its strength.
However, Yoon’s reckless decision plunged the country into its worst state constitutional crisis in decades. The scenes on Tuesday night were chaotic. Hundreds of soldiers surrendered to the National Assembly building. The public was confused about whether it was an attempted coup or just political theater. Investors got scared, which encouraged financial authorities promise “unlimited” market liquidity support. While Yoon’s experiment with the state of emergency was thankfully short-lived, the episode will be a lasting stain on the country’s Democratic slate.
His statement appears to have been the act of a desperate, self-serving leader without a plan. Yoon justified the move in an unscheduled national broadcast, claiming it was to purge South Korea of ​​”anti-state forces” and “normalize the country.” He accused opposition parties of sympathizing with North Korea, reflecting a long-standing divide in the country’s politics and an attempt to play on fears of its hostile northern neighbor. His party, the opposition and the civilians all knew that he was not acting on the basis of a genuine threat.
Yoon was a lame duck president. He took the presidency in 2022 with a winning margin of just 0.73 percent. He often clashed with the opposition-controlled legislature. A number of laws he supported were rejected. Tensions came to a head last week when the opposition voted to cut the government’s budget bill. Yoon claimed the cuts would turn South Korea into a “drug haven.”
The president may have gambled that declaring a state of emergency might allow him to push through his plan. Other pressures may also have influenced his decision. His tenure was mired in corruption scandals, including one involving his wife. Yoon’s approval rating was poor. Opposition leaders have also sought to impeach members of his government and prosecutors.
Political paralysis has unfortunately become the norm in South Korea. Its presidential system gives the head of state and government broad powers, but limits them to one term. This led to micromanagement and regular use of the veto power. Changes in presidents often come with sharp turns in policy. Several Korean presidents have also faced prosecution and conviction.
Yoon should be held responsible for jeopardizing Korea’s international standing and its hard-won democratic progress. Although the won and Korean stocks have reversed some of their initial losses, this week’s events will add to existing investor concerns about South Korea’s economic outlook and stability. Lawmakers have rightly tabled a motion to impeach him, which will be voted on later this week. The president’s position is clearly unsustainable.
The public and institutional response to Yoon’s actions showed that Korean democracy is strong. This moment of testing should now serve as the wake-up call the nation needs to build an even stronger edifice on those foundations.
