Martial Law Meets Mass Resistance in South Korea
By: Aarna Desai
On Dec. 4, 2024, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol made a startling announcement during a nationally televised address: he had invoked Martial Law across the country. This unprecedented move sent shockwaves through South Korean society. It marked the first time Martial Law had been implemented since the 1980 Gwangju Uprising, a nationwide movement led by students and labor unions. President Yoon’s declaration came as a response to what he described as a growing threat from opposition trying to "overthrow the free democracy" of South Korea, although there was no immediate evidence of an uprising or insurrection to justify such extreme measures.
The declaration of Martial Law sparked widespread outrage across the nation triggering protests, legal challenges, and intense political debates. Citizens took to the streets, with some gathering outside the National Assembly, demanding that lawmakers take action to overturn the decision. These demonstrations were not limited to ordinary citizens but involved participation from government officials and members of the military. In an act of defiance, members of South Korea's National Assembly stormed the parliament building, pushing back against the decree. Despite the presence of military forces stationed in strategic locations across the country, lawmakers remained determined to prevent what they viewed as a dangerous authoritarian overreach.
While some elements of the armed forces appeared ready to carry out the president’s orders, many soldiers and officers expressed deep reluctance to enforce Martial Law against their own people. This internal resistance, coupled with the scale of widespread protests, created an atmosphere of uncertainty and instability, leaving the nation with no clear path forward. Even as the decree went into effect, its legitimacy was immediately questioned by political opponents and legal experts alike.
The opposing Democratic Party swiftly condemned the decision, calling it an unconstitutional power grab. Legal scholars, who had long warned against the potential abuse of executive power, were quick to echo these concerns. They emphasized that the South Korean constitution provides for emergency measures only in cases of "imminent danger" or "grave threats" to national security—criteria that did not seem to apply in this situation. Within hours, the Democratic Party filed a motion to have the decree overturned in the Constitutional Court. Meanwhile, citizens—many of whom had lived through the trauma of past military regimes—expressed grave concerns that President Yoon’s actions could mark the beginning of a dangerous erosion of South Korea’s democratic institutions.
By the next day, the national crisis had escalated. Amid mounting pressure from lawmakers, military leaders, and public outcry, President Yoon was forced to reverse his decision. However, the reversal did little to quell the growing anger and mistrust directed at the president. Within days, protests spread nationwide, with citizens demanding that Yoon resign from office and face legal consequences for what many viewed as a gross overreach of executive power. While it remains uncertain whether impeachment efforts will succeed, the crisis has undeniably weakened Yoon’s political standing, casting significant doubt on the future of his presidency.
The implications of this episode are profound for South Korea’s democratic system. The country has long prided itself on its transition from military dictatorship to a vibrant democracy, and the memory of past authoritarianism remains fresh in the minds of many South Koreans. In this context, the invocation of Martial Law by a sitting president—even just briefly—has opened up old wounds and raised pressing questions about the resilience of South Korea’s democratic institutions.
President Yoon’s decision to invoke Martial Law has also cast a long shadow over his political future. While his administration has faced criticism over its handling of domestic and foreign policy issues, this latest crisis represents the most serious challenge to his leadership. His actions have alienated not only his political adversaries but also significant portions of the public and even members of the military. The political fallout from this incident is likely to have lasting consequences for his ability to govern effectively, and many are now questioning whether he can maintain the public trust after such a dramatic breach of democratic norms.
Ultimately, the events of Dec. 4, 2024, serve as a reminder of the fragility of democracy and the dangers of unchecked executive power. South Korea’s democratic institutions, which have been hard-won over decades, now face one of their greatest challenges. How the country responds in the coming weeks and months will determine not only President Yoon’s fate but also the future of South Korea’s democracy.
