South Korea’s democracy at crossroads A test of resilience amid political crisis

A recent article published by Foreign Affairs delves into the political upheaval in South Korea under President Yoon Suk-yeol and its broader implications for the country’s democratic system. This analysis highlights the concentration of power in the presidency and the profound polarization that has shaped recent political events, resulting in a crisis that reflects the broader struggles democracies face worldwide.

The article begins by describing the political shock of December 2024, when President Yoon declared martial law, only for the National Assembly to swiftly reject the decree. The political fallout escalated, culminating in the impeachment of both Yoon and his acting successor, Han Duck-soo. This chain of events revealed the fragility of South Korea’s democratic processes, where high-stakes battles for power have often pushed the nation’s constitutional guardrails to their limits. The article emphasizes how the martial law declaration was met with overwhelming public protest, but it also points to the unsettling fact that such a power grab had supporters within right-wing circles, signalling a broader erosion of democratic norms.

A key issue highlighted is the structural imbalance in South Korea’s political system, where the presidency holds significant power without sufficient checks and balances. The presidency wields extensive control over judicial appointments, foreign policy, and budgetary decisions. This concentration of authority—an enduring legacy of South Korea's authoritarian past—has led to frequent constitutional battles and standoffs between the executive and the National Assembly. With these tensions exacerbated by rising political polarization, South Korea has entered a period of political gridlock, where partisan competition often escalates to undemocratic actions, as seen with Yoon’s martial law attempt.

Polarization in South Korea is particularly intense due to what the article refers to as "negative partisanship," where voters primarily choose their party based on opposition to the other side, rather than support for specific policy platforms. This phenomenon is becoming more emotionally charged than ideologically driven, with each side viewing the other as an existential threat. This environment has fueled a volatile political climate where governance is increasingly difficult, as both major parties engage in zero-sum battles for control of the presidency. The cultural and generational divides, particularly regarding gender, family, and economic challenges, add layers of complexity to the nation’s political crises.

The article contends that the current situation in South Korea underscores the urgent need for structural reforms. It suggests reducing the power of the presidency through constitutional changes that would better balance the powers between the executive, legislature, and judiciary. Reform proposals include reducing the presidential term, granting more legislative oversight, and even moving toward federalism to distribute political power more evenly. However, the article cautions that despite widespread recognition of these issues, South Korea has struggled to implement meaningful reforms. The political system remains entrenched in a cycle of partisan conflict, and proposals for change often fail to gain traction due to the deep divisions within the political elite.

In conclusion, the article paints a sobering picture of South Korea’s democratic resilience under strain. The current crisis, while significant, may not be an isolated event. Without institutional reform to dilute presidential power and address the growing cultural rifts in society, South Korea may continue to face political crises, each one potentially more damaging than the last. The article serves as a cautionary tale for other democracies grappling with the challenges of polarization, executive overreach, and the erosion of democratic norms.

By Vugar Khalilov