South Korea’s democracy has faced yet another stern test with the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol, a polarising figure whose ill-conceived martial law decree plunged the nation into a constitutional crisis. The impeachment motion, carried by an overwhelming 204 votes in the 300-member National Assembly, reflects both the resilience of South Korea’s democratic institutions and the heavy political costs of authoritarian overreach. Mr Yoon’s decision to declare martial law on December 3, ostensibly to “root out anti-state forces” and bypass opposition obstruction, shocked the nation.

The decree granted sweeping emergency powers to the military, a chilling echo of South Korea’s authoritarian past. Though it was rescinded within six hours, the damage was done. Parliamentarians defied Mr Yoon’s forces to annul the decree, protesters flooded the streets, and calls for his resignation grew louder. The public and institutional backlash culminated in a second impeachment vote, supported not only by opposition lawmakers but by at least 12 members of Mr Yoon’s own People Power Party. This moment carries striking historical parallels. Yoon is now the second conservative president in recent years to face impeachment after Mr Park Geun-hye’s removal in 2017. Both cases underscore the volatility of South Korean politics, where presidents often end their terms embroiled in scandal.

Advertisement

Mr Yoon’s martial law gamble, framed as a desperate bid to protect democracy, instead exposed his isolation and miscalculation. His own party split over the issue, with some lawmakers viewing his actions as an existential threat to democratic norms. The impeachment itself reveals both the strength and fragility of South Korea’s democratic system. On one hand, it highlights the ability of the legislature to hold even the most powerful leaders accountable. On the other, it underscores the deep political divides and the risks inherent in a system where presidents wield considerable power yet face significant institutional checks. Prime Minister Han Duck-soo’s assumption as acting President reflects the constitutional safeguards in place, but the road ahead is fraught. The Constitutional Court now has six months to decide whether to permanently remove Mr Yoon from office.

A decision to uphold the impeachment could trigger a snap election, further shaking South Korea’s political landscape. Meanwhile, Mr Yoon’s defiance, exemplified in his vow to “fight to the end,” signals a drawn-out battle which risks deepening the nation’s divisions. South Korea’s democratic resilience shines through this episode, bolstered by its engaged citizenry and robust institutions. However, the crisis serves as a cautionary tale against the allure of authoritarian shortcuts, even when cloaked in the language of protecting democracy. Mr Yoon’s impeachment is a victory for accountability but also a reminder that democracy requires constant vigilance. As South Koreans await the court’s decision, their nation’s commitment to democratic principles faces its next test: navigating this turbulent chapter without succumbing to further polarisation or instability.