[Wang Son-taek] Roots of the dispute over martial law

The scorching summer of 2024 has finally passed, and South Korea is now entering the autumn season. While the weather has cooled down, the heated political fight continues unabated.

A fierce debate revolves around allegations that the Yoon Suk Yeol administration is preparing for martial law. The opposition has raised suspicions, claiming that the government's recent actions suggest preparations for martial law.

In contrast, the government and ruling party vehemently deny these allegations, dismissing them as baseless political agitation and accusing the opposition of spreading fake news. Heated debates between ruling and opposition parties are not unusual in a democratic society. However, this controversy is regrettable because it is both anachronistic and regressive. To prevent unnecessary controversies from recurring, we need to examine the causes and context behind this issue.

One striking aspect of this debate is the impracticality of the claim that martial law is being prepared. In a high-level democracy like South Korea, could a president realistically pursue martial law, which is tantamount to a palace coup? Simply put, it is almost impossible. Though a tiny group of wrong elites might secretly discuss the possibility, almost all the soldiers who would have to execute the coup would likely obstruct any attempt in various ways because South Korean soldiers are already accustomed to the highest standards of liberal democracy and are integral members of the people.

The government's fierce rebuttal of these allegations, labeling them unrealistic, is also unfamiliar. The presidential office issued a strong statement through a spokesperson, categorically rejecting the accusations as baseless rumors and demanding that the opposition present evidence.

This robust response seems surreal, considering that the government has been on the deep defensive due to gaffes and policy missteps that have left the administration in a weakened state, particularly after suffering a historic defeat in the April general election.

Why did the opposition raise an allegation, giving the government and ruling party an opportunity to revitalize? Certain government actions have fueled suspicion. One example is the nomination of Kim Yong-hyun, head of the Presidential Security Service, as the Minister of National Defense, which triggered doubts within the opposition. However, raising the issue of martial law without clear evidence looked reckless.

What motivated the opposition to make such a hasty allegation? It likely stems from a perception that the Yoon administration's approach to governance disregards common sense and rationality.

For instance, during the relocation of the presidential office, the administration did not seek public support. Following the Itaewon tragedy, where 159 young people were crushed to death, the administration showed a lack of accountability in punishing those responsible. Additionally, the government has refused to cooperate with a special investigation into the death of a marine during a disaster relief operation.

In foreign relations, the administration has pursued improved relations with Japan without securing public support. Despite evidence that the first lady received an inappropriate luxury handbag, the authorities repeatedly said they could not take punitive action. Given the president's repeated irrational actions, it is understandable that the opposition would have doubts on unthinkable scenarios beyond common sense and rationality.

Why does President Yoon operate outside the bounds of common sense and rationality in his governance? There appears to be a significant misunderstanding regarding the duties and roles of the presidency. As the head of state and government, the South Korean president is tasked with protecting the constitution, safeguarding national security, promoting peaceful unification, enhancing people's freedom and welfare and fostering national culture's development.

The constitution and laws grant the president immense power to fulfill these responsibilities. However, Yoon seems to focus solely on holding the highest office, leading to a perception that he can act autocratically without any limitations.

Why does Yoon misunderstand his role and duties? It likely stems from his time decades ago in the powerful and authoritarian prosecution when South Korean democracy was less mature. As a prosecutor, he may have conflated the authoritarian practices of the past military dictatorship with the core values of our society.

His role as a prosecutor or president may have ingrained in him the notion that his position was more about wielding power, wealth, and prestige than about upholding the rule of law in a democratic society. Furthermore, the excessive polarization in South Korean politics over the past decade or two may have contributed to Yoon's misjudgment. When political polarization becomes extreme, even the president might consider the interests of his supporters while viewing the opposing side as adversaries.

To prevent unproductive controversies like the current martial law debate from recurring in South Korea, Yoon must recognize the opposition as a legitimate partner in governance and acknowledge that the progressive camp is also part of the public he serves. However, given Yoon's political style, it is unlikely that he will change his perspective.

Therefore, it would be prudent for the National Assembly, particularly the opposition majority, to establish an emergency program that can effectively check the president's power and minimize any damage to the principles of liberal democracy, republicanism and the rule of law during his term.

Can the opposition effectively lead such an emergency supplement program? It will not be easy. The opposition itself has often fallen into the trap of a deep-rooted polarization, frequently antagonizing the conservative camp. However, there are also reasons for optimism.

Recently, Lee Jae-myung, the powerful leader of the Democratic Party, met with Han Dong-hoon, leader of the People Power Party, and agreed to form a consultative body to address issues affecting people's livelihoods. This is a very positive sign. If the opposition can operate within the bounds of common sense and rationality, recognizing that even the moderate and conservative camps are part of the public they serve, the frequency of unnecessary political conflicts will decrease significantly. It would also reduce public anxiety and dissatisfaction with politics.

Wang Son-taek

Wang Son-taek is an adjunct professor at Sogang University. He is a former diplomatic correspondent at YTN and a former research associate at Yeosijae. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. -- Ed.