A woman pulls a caricature depicting an imprisoned South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol as protesters marched calling for his impeachment following the president's short-lived martial law declaration, near the National Assembly in Seoul, South Korea, Dec. 7. AP-Yonhap
The Korean people, along with the rest of the world, rejoiced at the resilience of the country's democratic institutions and its enduring democratic spirit upon the fiasco created by President Yoon Suk Yeol's short-lived martial law, which has since led to the passage of an impeachment motion against him. Three foreign reporters and analysts long based in Seoul — Michael Breen, head of Insight Communications, columnist and the author of "The New Koreans," Andrew Salmon, Asia editor for The Washington Times and Sebastien Falletti, Asia correspondent of Le Figaro — shared their insights about possible cracks in South Korean democracy as well as South Korean society in 2024, where generational, gender divides and the gap between the haves and have-nots deepen. While highly assessing the democratic resilience of South Korea, they cited the need for the nation to address polarization and upgrade its democracy.
Michael Breen, CEO of Insight Communications, columnist and author, speaks at The Korea Times roundtable on the martial law crisis and the impeachment motion Wednesday, in Seoul. Korea Times photo by Choi Won-suk
The three attempted to decipher the president's intention behind his "shocking" action. Salmon introduced the concept of "autocoup," when a leader is already in government by legal, reasonable, fair means but then uses unfair methods to extend and maintain power. Falletti put forth a hypothetical scenario: What if martial law had not been uplifted? Breen said that this crisis may offer South Korea a chance to redefine its notion of democracy as the “will of the majority" over the "will of the people." There was skepticism about the claim that South Korea's presidency is too powerful, as they noted that more power has moved to the National Assembly. With no answers yet, Falletti cited the deep polarization — political, generational and gender — which he said will become critical in the days ahead.
Below are excerpts from Breen, Salmon and Falletti's interview with The Korea Times. The roundtable was moderated by Shim Jae-yun, chief editorial writer of The Korea Times. It has been edited for clarity and readability.
Q: This was the third impeachment motion against a sitting president. In comparison to the impeachment of former President Park Geun-hye (2016-2017), please share your impressions.
Sebastien Falletti: After the fall of Park, there was at least a sense that a national reconciliation was needed, the idea that we need to move on. This time, there is a different kind of vibe. The protagonist, President Yoon, is much more defiant than Park. He is preparing a combative, legal posture. The impeachment process is also overcast by a contentious political atmosphere, very polarized and I think that is going to make a big difference.
Sebastien Falletti, Asia correspondent of Le Figaro, speaks at The Korea Times roundtable on martial law crisis and impeachment motionin Seoul, Wednesday. Korea Times photo by Choi Won-suk
Andrew Salmon: Korea's governance system is democratic but is maybe too confrontational. Korea has two power centers: The president, and the National Assembly. And you have two major parties. So looking ahead, it may be time to consider adding a third power center to the Korean political structure – like adding an upper chamber to the Assembly, as in the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan.
Andrew Salmon, Asia editor for The Washington Times, at The Korea Times roundtable on the martial law crisis and the impeachment motion in Seoul, Wednesday. Korea Times photo by Choi Won-suk
Michael Breen: I am interested in the relationship between politics and law. Democracy should be law-based but I think Korean democracy has two weaknesses in this regard. One is that law is subjugated by political power and used by political power. It is inevitable for the president to be impeached. But I would like to see this achieved by the application of law and not by institutions influenced by mobs on the streets.
Q: What do you think of the prospects of the pending review of the Constitutional Court?
Falletti: I think the question at the moment is to what extent we are going to see political polarization of current politics coming into court, because it seems to me that Yoon wants to use the court as a platform to advocate his position and try to rally the conservative opinion around his view and hope to divide the opinion to make this contentious. So I think the concern at the moment is to what extent the court gets hijacked by politics.
Salmon: Koreans are very good at street politics. The left wing especially has shown the ability to mobilize, more so than the right wing. I suspect it will be very difficult for the court to ignore the politics of the streets.
Q: Recently, the street rallies have been divided between the conservatives and the liberals. What is your take on the division in the rallies?
Breen: Within the democratic spectrum, you have a left and right wing. What separates the two in Korea is North Korea and the concept of the nation itself. For example, the right wing believes that when reunification comes, the North should join what the South has created. The left, on the other hand, wants a new kind of Korea. That is why they are more willing to negotiate with North Korea. On most other issues, politics is pragmatic. Regarding martial law, the opposition has a clearer message – that the president belongs to the other side and overstepped his authority.
Salmon: As I said previously, the left-wing Korean Confederation of Trade Unions is very effective in mobilizing, building up the skeleton of mass protests. If someone had said to me two weeks ago that a South Korean president was going to declare martial law, I'd have said, ‘Impossible!' It was as likely that Kim Jong-un would declare liberal democracy.
Falletti: What was especially different about the recent rallies in Yeouido was that despite the cold, there was more people and young people, and those with families — I would say normal people came to the rallies. The Korean people's shock went beyond politics, and I think people just became exasperated with what they perceived as the president's stubbornness. There also seems to be a generational gap where you can see the president exhorting his core conservative base and the young taking this opportunity to voice their anger about the package that the older generation is handing down to them, especially the women in their 20s and 30s.
My big question is what could have happened the next day if martial law was not lifted? Would South Korea just abide by it or would there be protests? I don't have the answer to this, but behind such a question is how the generational fracture in Korean society between the old elite living in the old days and the young Koreans who have a different expectation on life and on politics will play out.
Breen: How one reacts to the president's action depends on how we conceive of what he was trying to do. I don't understand what he was up to. This martial law wasn't a coup and it wasn't like normal martial law. It seems to me that he acted like the prosecutor he used to be and not like the president he is. This is how the prosecution behaves when you're not cooperating with them. It was very limited and targeted. I can't see what his purpose was. Was it to raid the election commission for evidence of election interference? Or was it simply frustration with the DPK? The conservatives seem more willing to forgive him. We foreigners are more outraged in the context of our own countries, which are far more law-based than this country, which is far more power politics-based.
Regarding Korean protest culture, it has changed over the years. Former President Kim Dae-jung banned tear gas, and former President Roh Moo-hyun used a strategy of police buses to corral protestors. The death of an elderly man in a protest during the Lee Myung-bak administration changed policing. On the second day of the protests against Park Geun-hye in 2017, police lightened up and that made protests safer for mothers with children on their shoulders to take part. That safety is one reason why you see more women than men at protests now.
Salmon: There is a word for what happened in Korea, “autocoup,” where someone is already in government by legal, reasonable and fair means, but then uses unfair means to sort of extend and maintain power.
I think the Korean protests changed with the 2002 World Cup games. The Koreans liked that mass festival ambience, and that's what the street protests have become.
Breen: There is an assumption in Korea that the people have to be united and have one will. The idea is that somehow division is wrong or undesirable. But division is natural. The idea here that democracy means that the “people” rule is a mistake. In democracies, the people consent to be ruled. But it functions as the will of the majority with the rights of the minority protected.
Q: What impact will the martial law debacle and the impeachment motion have on South Korea's foreign policy?
Salmon: I think Korea's reputation is not damaged. People have reacted very fast to a very strange situation, normalcy was restored in three hours. A former government official told me that it was the “shortest martial law in human history.” The politics is a mess but the Korean people are not. But what happens in the months ahead, when you have a caretaker government led by (former Prime Minister) Han Duck-soo? What if a regional crisis occurs? Is Han Duck-soo capable of managing that crisis? But then again, this has happened before and the Korean civil service and economy have carried on.
Also, South Korea should note that Japanese business leaders like Masayoshi Son, and public figures such as Akie Abe, the wife of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, have all met with the incoming U.S. President Donald Trump, despite Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has yet to meet the president. It's a clear message that South Korea should note in this crucial time ahead of the inauguration of Trump 2.0.
From left, Kim Ji-soo of The Korea Times; Andrew Salmon, Asia editor for The Washington Times; Sebastien Falletti, Asia correspondent of French newspaper Le Figaro; Michael Breen, head of Insight Communications, columnist and the author of “The New Koreans”; and Shim Jae-yun, chief editorial writer for The Korea Times, pose before a roundtable on the martial law crisis and impeachment in Seoul, Wednesday. Korea Times photo by Choi Won-suk
Falletti: To the outer world, Korea gave a massive message of reassurance that Korea's democracy is deeply rooted. But having said that, the crisis has also blurred its image. I think Korea's image has taken a hit, in that, yes it is a democracy but is it reliable? For South Korea, it was the perfect time to leverage itself as a solid ally to the incoming U.S. administration by Trump, and also toward Europe, which was finding Korea as the best partner in the region to deal with East Asian challenges. If polarization figures in prominently, it will be a rocky path ahead and the crisis will become longer.
Breen: I have long felt that if there were to be an opportunity for reunification with North Korea, South Korea would not be ready. Right now, this country has the fourth highest suicide rate and the lowest birthrate in the world. It is a nation with a sickness, a malaise over the purpose of life. Also, our democracy here is not settled. It came almost 40 years ago through mass protest. Ever since, we have continued to protest, mainly against presidential power. Nearly every democratically elected president has been persecuted either before or after leaving office. President Yoon, of course, has given the country a good reason to challenge his rule now. But in my opinion, in attacking only presidents, we are missing the real problem of political subjugation of law, the manipulation of law by power. We can see this now in National Assembly overreach. The solution to this is for law to be more clear and more rational and for the politicians to abide by it. Their power needs to be checked and balanced in this way. The upper house idea by Andrew is brilliant, as a check-and-balance against the powerful National Assembly. If we can get to a more law-based system, the role of the people on the streets will be diminished.