By Stephane Mot
2025-02-03
The
chaotic mess that followed Yoon Suk Yeol’s martial law folly is an
embarrassment for Korean politicians who, unlike in 2016, failed to
rise to the democratic challenge.
Democracy
relies on a very delicate balance of power where the independence of
justice remains one of the trickiest goals to achieve, and Korea is by
no means an exception. Here, justice plays an even more important role
since the balance tilts toward the legislative power in a unicameral
system with a single-term limit for presidents.
Following an event as exceptional as a martial law declaration, democracy and justice must work flawlessly: History is watching.
In
2016, Korea experienced a rare moment of grace when, except for a
minority of hardcore supporters, the whole nation united to demand and
obtain the impeachment of then-President Park Geun-hye. Democracy
triumphed and its very fundamentals were at the core of everyday
discussions: what is justice, what is the separation of powers, what are
checks and balances … This unity was also made possible because, from
the beginning, the Ewha Womans University students who started the
mobilization around the Park scandal demanded that the movement remained
apolitical.
The democratic surge against
Yoon’s martial law did start on a bipartisan basis (the move was
immediately denounced by leaders from both sides, and swiftly canceled
in a unanimous vote), but partisan politics quickly took over.
Yoon’s
disastrous move logically resulted in his impeachment, but instead of
following the natural process led by the Constitutional Court, the
opposition launched parallel investigations to speed up the calendar.
Because Yoon was not the only target of justice, and from Dec. 3 the key
question has never been whether he will be removed from power (he
should and he will), nor even when (in any case by mid-May, or six
months after his impeachment), but whether Lee Jae-myung will pull a
Trump and elude justice until the presidential elections, which must be
held within 60 days following the president’s removal.
Substituting
the calendar of justice with the calendar of politics is dangerous for
democracy, and when you try to score political goals at all costs, you
end up scoring own goals in front of history. As the Republican Party
just demonstrated in the U.S., you can at the same time win an election
and lose your soul. And just like Lincoln would hardly recognize Trump’s
GOP, Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun would not necessarily condone this
Democratic Party of Korea’s (DPK) handling of justice.
Make
no mistake, as president, Yoon himself displayed a very selective
vision of justice. And of course, his People Power Party is far closer
to Trump’s, particularly with its own "basket of deplorables" (from
anti-feminists to ultra-conservative bigots, K-MAGA conspiracy theorists
and hardcore history revisionists … ). But it takes two to tango, and
there are good and bad guys on both sides of the aisle.
The
DPK’s first miscalculation was the express and frankly unnecessary
impeachment of then-acting President Han Duck-soo. This manufactured
crisis confirmed that party leaders were in a rush and didn’t care about
the economic or international consequences of their actions.
But
weaponizing the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking
Officials (CIO) was clearly a moral hazard. Yes, it undoubtedly helped
the party achieve its goal of speeding up the judiciary calendar and
serving Lee, but at what cost?
With its
spectacular strikes, borderline legal tactics and at times comical
blunders (not to mention unanswered questions regarding its scope and
legitimacy), the CIO drew criticism from both sides and replaced the due
process of justice with a tragic circus that not only contaminated a
Constitutional Court forced to take sides or to turn a blind eye, but
also cast serious doubts about the impartiality of the whole system.
Worse:
The CIO’s shortcomings also revived the key controversies that
surrounded its creation five years earlier. At the core of justice
reforms that disrupted the balance of power and brought confusion
between justice and police, undermining the core missions of the latter,
the new institution appeared like a special purpose vehicle, a partisan
tool tailor-made to "search and kill" any investigation against former
President Moon Jae-in’s administration and friends.
So
using and abusing this very CIO against Yoon, a liberal darling who
before falling down his own rabbit hole became the right wing’s champion
precisely because he resisted these controversial reforms as well as
abuses reminiscent of the despicable prosecutor Woo Byung-woo ... that's
not the smartest message to send if you want to restore trust in the
system.
Furthermore, this messy, undignified
rush is deliberately depriving Korea of a most vital democratic debate
on the core issues raised by Yoon’s folly, in particular the accusations
of abuse of power made not only against him, but also against the
legislative majority. This general lack of transparency, this confusion,
fed feelings of frustration and unfairness, logically contributing to
the rise of the disgraced president and his party in opinion polls when
Yoon should have remained at rock bottom, like Park before him. As much
as wild right-wing conspiracy theories, this certainly fueled Korea’s
own Jan. 6 moment (the inexcusable yet fully predictable and preventable
Jan. 19 assault on the court that issued Yoon’s arrest warrant).
Between
Yoon’s suicidal martial law declaration and the opposition’s
counterproductive barrage, Korean politicians from both sides only
managed to demonstrate their lack of judgment and their unfitness to
lead the nation toward actual justice, fairness and unity.
The
failed reforms of 2020 must be fixed, checks and balances restored, and
new, moderate leadership must emerge on both sides. If now is certainly
not the best time to allow a second term for presidents, implementing a
two-round system for the next presidential elections would be the best
way to let all voices be heard in the first round, to help more
transparent alliances form before the second and to erect an additional
hurdle against populism.
Stephane Mot is author of “Seoul Villages - Guisin-dong and other Seoul Villages."
