This week stood out in many ways. As President Yoon Suk Yeol has been talking about new policies, and I was getting ready to dive into the pros and cons, another streak of news immediately distracted me. The piece was asking whether the current administration was about to enact a martial law in South Korea. On one end, the idea sounded grotesque and hard to believe, but on the other, it brought a chill to my back — what if it was actually the case? So, I began to dig into counterfactuals. The likelihood of it being rather low, but not impossible — I would suggest: just don't do it. Here are the reasons for it to be a bad idea if anyone is thinking of doing that.

First, the Constitution itself guards the situation; it is explicit about terms; the enactment has to be a very large threat to the country's stability. Well, let's assume the North is the one — but so far, the most "dangerous" provocations have been rocket tests, a few drones and balloons with excrement. To justify enactment of the martial law due to the rockets would be hard because, I say, maybe a great leader's "hobby" is to shoot them. The drones — those were so primitive that they made of South Korean military a laughing stock, and the balloons were just pranks to tease the president. So, these lack weight for them to be the reasons. Plus, the Constitution stipulates only two cases: a national emergency or to guard the public from the threat outside. Neither of the threats is viable, and if anyone mentions nukes, the counterargument to that would be, Well, China and Russia already have them; why haven't we enacted the law already? So, don't just do it.

Martial law restricts freedom of speech, press, assembly and association. We don't need to look far to see what it is like. At least five states have declared martial law in Asia since 2000. Myanmar has experienced martial law several times, including the so-called Saffron Revolution and in 2021 after the military coup. It still struggles with military rule and is still in crisis.

Thailand declared martial law in 2014. After months of unrest, the military rule has not resolved its governance issues. Just last month, their Supreme Court ruled against the winning opposition party, throwing the country back into turmoil.

In 2017, it was the Philippines that experienced martial law as a response to Islamist attacks. It sounded very legitimate then; today, however, then-President Rodrigo Duterte is under investigation by the International Criminal Court for crimes during his bloody "war on drugs."

Pakistan imposed martial law in 2007 under the leadership of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who later was tried and convicted of high treason. Surviving four assassination attempts, he was sentenced to death but died just last year because of illness in Dubai.

Notoriously famous Bangladesh had some martial law provisions in 2007, and the ensuing political turmoil for the following decade degraded the country's economy significantly. It all ended just recently with Prime Minister Hasina fleeing to exile in India after her rule turned more authoritarian, ordering security forces to use weapons against its population. She was toppled by young people who could not tolerate corruption and repression and could not be stopped by curfews, blocked internet or even the military. Ultimately, the military announced it would not use force against its people.

That brings us back to South Korea. In 2018, after the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye, the military command indeed had plans for martial law. That plan involved deploying tanks, armored vehicles and thousands of armed personnel with special forces. Only now do we realize how close the country was to enacting it under the excuse of public unrest, which began from a sunken ferry. No wonder, seeing the political strife in Seoul today, there are worries about a declaration of martial law in South Korea if the strife grows similar to one against the Park administration.

And then there is the United States, or its military, here on the peninsula. I doubt another martial law will go smoothly because, as in the words of one U.S. official, the period surrounding the 1980 Gwangju Uprising served as a "crucible" for U.S. policy toward the South. So, being dogged by the past, the U.S. will not be complicit in any use of power against the people. Plus, just a year ago, in March 2023, President Yoon was celebrating democracy with U.S. President Joe Biden; they both pledged "commitments to reform laws and policies, bolster transparent and accountable institutions, and contribute additional support to democratic reformers, journalists and activists." Those words weren't empty. My hunch is that in any case of political repression, the U.S. will seek heavy retribution, as it will "muddy the water" for a more extensive regional policy for the U.S.

So, the point is that any military-led government would struggle to hold onto power. As history shows, people who have experienced freedom are rebellious. Those restrictions never worked in Korea, especially in the last four decades. If put in place, the law will mean bloodshed, the price for which eventually will be dear, not only to any hypothetical leader or anyone around him but also to all their relatives. Their deeds will go against the future of their descendants. No one wants to be on the wrong side of history. So, to anyone possibly thinking of martial law, my suggestion is simple: don't go against your people — just don't do it.

Eugene Lee (mreulee@gmail.com) is a lecturing professor at the Graduate School of Governance at Sungkyunkwan University in Seoul. Specializing in international relations and governance, his research and teaching focus on national and regional security, international development, government policies and Northeast and Central Asia.