The unexpected declaration of martial law by South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol on December 3 stunned the global community. How could a thriving democracy, widely celebrated for its institutional strength, revert so abruptly? The dramatic response from South Korea’s parliament and citizens showcased the resilience of its democracy but also exposed deeper fault lines that hold lessons for other nations, particularly the United States.
To counter Yoon’s decree, 190 members of the 300-strong National Assembly braved armed soldiers to repeal martial law, buoyed by mass protests from thousands of citizens. Within hours, Yoon reversed his decision, resisting demands for his resignation or impeachment. However, pressure mounted, and on December 14, the National Assembly voted decisively, 204 to 85, to impeach him. This swift resistance to authoritarian overreach was hailed as a triumph for democracy, with some dubbing it a “reverse January 6” moment, referencing the Capitol riots in the U.S.
A pattern of democratic resilience
This is not the first time South Korea’s democracy has appeared to withstand a severe crisis. Eight years ago, over one million citizens participated in candlelight protests demanding the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye over corruption charges. That episode concluded with her removal and a peaceful transfer of power, symbolising the strength of South Korean democratic institutions.
South Korea’s democratic credentials are impressive: free and fair elections, high voter turnout, and a vibrant protest culture. The country’s 2024 Freedom Index score of 83, matching that of the United States, reflects these attributes. Furthermore, its transformation from a military dictatorship to a consolidated democracy within 30 years is a post-World War II success story.
Yet the rapid recurrence of presidential impeachments—two within a decade—reveals underlying problems. Rather than a testament to democratic health, these crises signal deeper structural issues, primarily rooted in partisan and nationalist polarisation.
Nationalist polarisation and its consequences
South Korea’s political landscape is deeply influenced by Cold War-era nationalist divisions. The left envisions an ethnonationalist “One Korea” reunited with North Korea, while the right champions a “Global Korea” aligned with the U.S.-led liberal order. This ideological divide has evolved into an “us versus them” dynamic, where opposing factions view one another not as legitimate competitors but as existential threats.
This brand of polarisation undermines the norms of mutual tolerance and forbearance, critical guardrails of democracy. When political parties prioritise nationalist agendas over representation, democratic processes devolve into contests for state control.
The symptoms of this dysfunction are clear. President Yoon accused the opposition-controlled National Assembly of attempting to impeach 22 of his appointees and repeatedly vetoed investigations into his wife, Kim Keon-hee, for alleged corruption. Meanwhile, the ruling conservative party indicted opposition leader Lee Jae-myung on corruption charges, culminating in his imprisonment. This tit-for-tat cycle of retribution has plagued South Korean politics for years, turning it into a zero-sum game.
While political leaders must be held accountable for misconduct, nationalist polarisation transforms such accountability into partisan weaponry. This cycle of vengeance weakens institutions and erodes public trust in democracy itself.
Parallels in the United States
The United States is not immune to these dangers. President Joe Biden’s controversial pardon of his son Hunter and concerns over possible retribution from a future Trump administration mirror the dynamics in South Korea. Nationalist polarisation, though rooted in different histories, similarly distorts democratic norms in America, making bipartisan cooperation increasingly rare and undermining institutional stability.
More Read
Lessons for America
South Korea’s recent crisis highlights the risks of unchecked nationalist polarisation. While its citizens and institutions responded admirably to Yoon’s overreach, the conditions that led to the crisis are a warning for other democracies. For Americans, the takeaway is not to celebrate South Korea’s resistance but to focus on preventing the polarisation that necessitates such dramatic interventions.
To safeguard its democracy, the United States must work to find unifying national values that transcend partisan divides. This involves fostering dialogue, rebuilding trust in institutions, and prioritising policies that address growing inequalities.
As Andrew Yeo and Aram Hur, experts on Korean and East Asian politics, argue in their research, nationalist polarisation poses a unique threat to democracies by turning political competition into existential conflict. The survival of democracy depends on recognising these patterns and addressing them before they spiral out of control.
South Korea’s democracy, while resilient, remains fragile. Its recent turmoil serves as both a cautionary tale and a reminder: democracies thrive not just on the strength of their institutions but on the shared values and mutual respect of their citizens. For America, the challenge is clear—know your rival, but also, know yourself.
