Yoon Suk Yeol | President’s gambit declined

The impeached leader of South Korea was able to manage a successful transition from state prosecutor to national politician, but could not learn the give-and-take of democratic politics, nor give up thinking like a prosecutor

Around half past ten on the night of December 3, Yoon Suk Yeol, South Korea’s President and leader of the conservative People Power Party (PPP), appeared on national television to declare “emergency martial law”. The decree meant that all political meetings, rallies, and strikes would be banned and media would come under military censorship. Local media reported that law enforcement and intelligence agencies got instructions to round up Opposition lawmakers and seal the National Assembly. Mr. Yoon, 63, justified the move by claiming that the Opposition, the liberal Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) was engaged in “anti-state activities” and collaborating with “North Korean communists”.

But the news was received by ordinary Koreans with shock, for they believed they had put the days of military rule firmly behind them. It is a testament to how deeply the democratic ethos had taken root in the country that the martial law lasted barely six hours. During this dramatic interlude, Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the DPK, rallied his party members, asking them to rush to the National Assembly building. He also began a live stream from his mobile, getting the general public directly involved as his party scrambled to save the country from a looming dictatorship.

Also read | What to know about martial law declared and then overturned by South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol

The live stream helped. Soldiers despatched to secure the National Assembly were held up by thousands of protesters blocking their way and demanding immediate restoration of democratic government. The delay and the consequent confusion enabled 190 of the 300 members the National Assembly to sneak into the premises, with some even climbing in through the windows. In a special session, all the 190, including members of Mr. Yoon’s PPP, voted against the martial law. As per the Korean constitution, if the legislative majority strikes down martial law, the President must comply. Left with no alternative, Mr. Yoon withdrew his proclamation by 4.30 a.m. on Wednesday.

The Opposition brought an impeachment motion against him on December 7, but it was thwarted by a mass boycott by all the PPP lawmakers. The PPP has 108 members in the 300-member National Assembly, and a two-thirds majority vote (200) is required for an impeachment. The Opposition put the impeachment to vote again on December 14, and this time, 204 voted in favour. As a result, Mr. Yoon’s presidential duties have been suspended, and Prime Minister Han Duck-soo will serve as acting President.

Review by court

Korea’s Constitutional court will now review the Assembly’s impeachment decision and has 180 days to deliver its verdict. If it strikes down the impeachment, Mr. Yoon will return to office. If it upholds it, Mr. Yoon will be permanently removed from office and presidential elections must be held within 60 days. Simultaneously, Mr. Yoon also faces an investigation into whether his martial law decree amounts to insurrection, a crime that carries a death penalty.

As per the Constitution, martial law can only be invoked in extreme circumstances, “to cope with a military necessity or to maintain the public safety and order by mobilisation of the military forces in time of war, armed conflict or similar national emergency.” These conditions were not in evidence when Mr. Yoon made his move. Given that members of his own party spoke out immediately against his decree, Mr. Yoon seemed to have completely misread the fiercely democratic culture of his people, for whom the very idea of ‘martial law’ evokes dire and even traumatic events from the past, such as the 1980 Gwangju Uprising and the massacre of pro-democracy activists by an autocratic regime.

In fact, the public mood became evident almost instantly on social media, which was replete with ‘trending’ posts that questioned Mr. Yoon’s mental fitness, with users suggesting he might require psychiatric evaluation for “delusional disorder” and “paranoia”. So, what explains Mr. Yoon’s extraordinary act of overreach, one that has not only derailed his political career but has the potential to land him in jail or worse?

Korean politics in recent times has been marked by extreme polarisation, with political incumbents often using their tenures to seek vengeance on their rivals. For Mr. Yoon, frustration with his prime rival, Mr. Lee, had been building up for a long time.

Unlike Mr. Lee, Mr. Yoon never held elected office until he became President. Again, unlike Mr. Lee, whose parents were sanitation workers, Mr. Yoon comes from a privileged background. He studied law at an elite university before embarking on a stellar career as a prosecutor, sending two former Presidents to jail for abuse of power. In March 2021, Mr. Yoon resigned as the prosecutor general. In June, he announced his candidacy for the 2022 Presidential race. And by March 2022, he defeated Mr. Lee by the closest margin in Korean history (48.56% to 47.83% of the vote) to become President. His campaign, and political posturing, especially on issues related to gender parity, have prompted several comparisons with Donald Trump.

In stark contrast to Mr. Yoon’s political trajectory of privilege to conservative politician, Mr. Lee began as a factory worker, and worked as a labour lawyer, following the path of rights-based politics to the centre-left of the DPK. Not surprisingly, the personality clash and political rivalry between Mr. Yoon, a conservative, and Mr. Lee, a liberal, also had an ideological edge.

Under Mr. Yoon’s presidency, the political cleavage between the two sides found expression in state prosecutors vigorously pursuing bribery and breach of trust investigations against Mr. Lee, who has denied these charges, terming them politically motivated. Mr. Yoon also rebuffed Mr Lee’s attempts for a direct meeting to figure out a working relationship.

Mr. Lee, having lost the Presidential race to Mr. Yoon, bounced back with a seat in the National Assembly where he has emerged as the dominant figure in the Opposition. He has used the DPK’s Parliamentary majority to repeatedly block Mr. Yoon’s Budgets and impeach several of his key administrative officials — a tactic Mr. Yoon has described as “legislative dictatorship”.

Lame duck President

Mr. Yoon did not enjoy a Parliamentary majority when he became President in 2022. He had a chance to get it in the general elections in April this year but failed, as the DPK won a landslide. South Korean Presidents are limited to one five-year term, and Mr. Yoon was facing the dubious prospect of serving out his entire term as a lame duck President — without a majority, or even a working relationship, in the National Assembly. For most of this year, Mr. Yoon has complained bitterly about a non-cooperative National Assembly controlled by the Opposition, whom he has called “monsters” and a “den of criminals”. It would appear that mounting frustration over “legislative dictatorship” was weighing heavily on Mr. Yoon’s mind, and perhaps triggered the impulse for a tit-for-tat — executive dictatorship, in the form of martial law.

In South Korean history, prosecutors have generally served as useful weapons for authoritarian leaders — they are typically not viewed as friendly to democracy. Mr. Yoon has demonstrated why. He was able to manage a successful transition from state prosecutor to national politician, but could not learn the give-and-take of democratic politics, nor give up thinking like a prosecutor.

Published - December 15, 2024 01:21 am IST