Yoon released, level playing field next?

Today, YOON Suk-yeol was released from jail following a ruling exposing his arrest as illegal and the process behind it as questionable. Prosecutor General SHIM Woo-jung refused to appeal this ruling that confirmed the serious doubts surrounding the way justice and democracy were handled following Yoon's stunning martial law declaration (see below 'Korea needs new leadership... on both sides', my article in The Korea Times last month).

If countless legal and constitutional experts have already denounced the abuses committed over the past few months, this is the first official time justice officially rules foul play. And in a striking parallel between two Prosecutor Generals, SHIM Woo-jung took a stand against LEE Jae-myung's abuses of justice similar to YOON's against MOON Jae-in five years ago.

Public opinion has also shifted, younger generations being particularly angered about the unfairness of a system corrupted to an appalling point. Over the past week, we've learned that MOON's controversial reforms didn't stop at creating a constitutional and judicial monster in the CIO (see article below), but also perverted the election commission into another political tool totally exempt from accountability, its top job being even handed down from father to son. Now calls are mounting to investigate the investigation, starting with the CIO. 

LEE Jae-myung himself may face new challenges within his party. In spite of his own legal problems, he's been parading like an acting president, promising everything and its contrary, claiming his DPK is not progressive, courting both TRUMP and XI. The controversial figure has managed to remove all competitors within the DPK, but it's getting every day more obvious that he is the problem. Like TRUMP corrupted Lincoln's GOP from the inside, LEE Jae-myung keeps defacing the party of KIM Dae-jung and ROH Moo-hyun

I've made the parallel between TRUMP and LEE for years, but it's never been more relevant  than today: fundamentally, both are accused of the same attacks on democracy, particularly regarding the separation and balance of powers. The difference is that with DJT the executive is taking over justice and the legislative power, while with LJM the legislative power is taking over the executive and justice. In both cases, a controversial leader struggling with justice puts himself first and last, and doesn't care about the party or the country.

As for YOON Suk-yeol, if he can feel somehow vindicated for his diagnostic (democracy was under threat at many levels), he may still pay for his radical method of raising the alert (declaring martial law).

This watershed moment comes days before the decision of a Constitutional Court itself under scrutiny for obvious bias and for actions that contradicted both law and its own rules. In such a context, ruling YOON guilty of insurrection would cause a major democratic crisis because it would in itself be equivalent to an insurrection or coup d'etat by LEE and friends. On the other hand, no one expect this LEE-friendly body to fully exonerate the impeached president. 

The only decent way out would be to decide not to decide, and to rule that given the doubts surrounding this whole mess, investigation should start from scratch. 

Better get this right this time. 

And make sure that both sides are fully and fairly investigated

History keeps watching. 

Seoul Village 2025
Welcome to our Korean Errlines! Follow Seoul Village on Facebook, Bluesky, Threads, and X/Twitter, follow me on Instagram.
Download 'Seoul VillageS', the free ebook.

Korea deserves better leadership . . . on both sides

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."