On the night of Dec. 3, South Korea underwent an extraordinary political disturbance as President Yoon Suk Yeol announced martial law during a late-night TV speech, sending tremors through the country's democratic frameworks.
President Yoon accused the opposition Democratic Party of colluding with North Korean forces and engaging in "anti-state conduct." The declaration marked the first martial law in over four decades, instantly plunging the country into a state of political turmoil.
Yoon's justification was multifaceted and controversial. He claimed that the opposition party had transformed the National Assembly into a "den of criminals" and was actively working to undermine the government.
The president argued that his action was necessary to eliminate "pro-North anti-state elements" and protect the nation's stability. The implementation was swift and dramatic. Military special forces were mobilized to block entry to the National Assembly building, and press freedom was immediately curtailed.
Cho Ji-ho, the head of South Korea's police agency, later testified that the armed forces had requested police assistance to locate and detain 15 people, including leaders of major political parties.
Resistance and revocation
Within hours, the South Korean political system demonstrated remarkable resilience as 190 National Assembly members convened an emergency session, with 18 members of Yoon's own People Power Party joining the opposition in unanimously rejecting the martial law decree.
The resistance was not limited to legislative chambers. Residents of Seoul protested on the streets, insisting on the end of martial law and urging Yoon to step down. Even with the early military mobilization, legislators discovered a chance to enter the parliament building and contest the decree.
By early morning, Yoon was forced to rescind the order, respecting the National Assembly's decision. However, the damage was already done. The six-hour martial law declaration had exposed deep fractures in South Korea's democratic framework.
A historical perspective of martial law between Philippines and South Korea
Both leaders justified their actions using anti-communist rhetoric where Yoon cited "pro-North Korean forces" while the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos Sr. pointed to the "communist threat" from the Communist Party of the Philippines. The declarations shared similar initial implementations, with both presidents attempting to control media outlets and targeting political opposition figures for arrest.
However, the differences are far more significant. Yoon's martial law lasted merely six hours before being overturned by swift parliamentary action, while Marcos Sr. maintained his grip for 14 years, effectively ruling until 1986.
The institutional response also differed dramatically. South Korea's democratic institutions, particularly the National Assembly, demonstrated resilience by convening an emergency session with 190 members voting to nullify the decree.
In contrast, Marcos Sr. successfully dissolved Congress, eliminated the vice presidency, and maintained his dictatorial powers even after formally lifting martial law in 1981.
The human rights implications also diverged significantly. While Yoon's brief martial law resulted in minimal direct harm, Marcos Sr.'s martial law from 1972 to 1981, Amnesty International documented approximately 70,000 people imprisoned, 34,000 tortured, and 3,240 killed.
Perhaps most tellingly, South Korea's democratic safeguards proved effective, with Yoon facing immediate impeachment proceedings, while Marcos successfully extended his rule beyond constitutional term limits.
In an interview with BusinessWorld, Cleve V. Arguelles, CEO of Philippine think tank WR Numero, emphasizes that South Korea's martial law crisis carries significant symbolic weight, particularly for emerging democracies like the Philippines.
"When a democratically elected president imposes martial law without clear and justifiable reasons, it sends a troubling signal to the global community," he explained.
South Korea's martial law periods, while brutal, did not reach the same systematic scale of documented atrocities. Critically, both nations ultimately transitioned to democracy through different mechanisms: South Korea through gradual reform and negotiated transitions, while the Philippines achieved change through the People Power Revolution, a mass protest movement that directly ousted Marcos Sr.
Aftermath and its implications
The consequences were immediate and severe. On Dec. 14 the National Assembly voted to impeach Yoon, with 204 votes in favor and 85 against. His presidential powers were suspended, pending a Constitutional Court decision within 180 days.
Investigations revealed the depth of Yoon's attempted power grab. The former deputy director of the National Intelligence Service testified about ordered arrests of political leaders, broadcasters, and even a sitting judge. The defense minister, police chief, and head of Seoul's metropolitan police agency were arrested.
Yoon's approval ratings dropped to a record low of 11%, the lowest since he assumed office in 2022. Despite undergoing impeachment proceedings, Yoon stayed resolute, declaring he would "never surrender" and calling the situation a "temporary interruption" in his presidency.
The crisis revealed both weaknesses and strengths within South Korea's democratic structure. The military's response was seen to be hesitant, with reports indicating a resistance to Yoon's directive.
Cabinet members, including the prime minister, tendered their resignations, as did the President's chief of staff, the policy director, and the national security adviser. This large-scale departure highlighted the seriousness of the constitutional crisis and the resilience of institutions against authoritarian rule.
The response from the public has been largely unfavorable, with more than 70% of South Koreans in favor of impeachment actions. Nationwide demonstrations broke out, as people carried signs that said "Democracy Over Dictatorship." Nonetheless, a tiny fraction—about 10% of the populace—backed Yoon's actions, exposing significant societal rifts.
A fragile democracy tested
Yoon's announcement of martial law signifies more than just a political error—an indication of increasing political division in South Korea. The president, confronted with low approval ratings and a deadlocked parliament, sought to implement extraordinary measures to strengthen power.
The event highlights both the weaknesses and strengths of South Korea's democratic systems. Although the effort to undermine democratic principles was concerning, the prompt and collective reaction from the National Assembly, press, and public showcased the strength of the nation's democratic system.
Global consequences are considerable. The crisis has posed concerns regarding the stability of democratic institutions in the Indo-Pacific region and may have strained the alliance between South Korea and the U.S. The martial law crisis of December 2024 will certainly be recognized as a pivotal point in South Korean political history—a time when democracy faced challenges but ultimately triumphed.
The parallels of the two martial laws are particularly bitter. Both nations emerged from colonial rule and embraced democracy, only to face leaders who tested its limits. However, where Marcos Sr. succeeded in consolidating power through military support, Yoon's attempt crumbled against robust democratic safeguards built after South Korea's own experience with authoritarianism.
The contrast is stark; Marcos's martial law resulted in thousands of human rights violations, while Yoon's six-hour decree ended with his impeachment. The experience of South Korea provides a valuable lesson for the Philippines and other developing democracies, showing that robust democratic institutions, an active citizenry, and constitutional protections can stop history from recurring.
In an interview with BusinessWorld, Anthony Lawrence Borja, a political science professor at De La Salle University in Manila, provides a critical perspective on institutional differences.
"The recent series of events in South Korea could be considered as proof that authoritarian tendencies can survive and even thrive within a supposedly liberal democratic system" he explained.
Borja further observed that the Filipino citizens' understanding of institutional checks and balances differs significantly from their East Asian counterparts.
"I don't think ordinary Filipino citizens have the same sense of institutional checks and balances as their East Asian counterparts in Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea," he added.
When 70% of South Koreans supported impeachment and citizens immediately took to the streets, it showed how a nation's collective memory of authoritarian rule can strengthen its democratic resolve. For both nations, these episodes serve as reminders that democracy requires constant vigilance.
Meanwhile, political science professor from the University of the Philippines-Diliman, Maria Ela Atienza, shared with BusinessWorld the crucial difference in institutional strength between the two nations. She highlighted how South Korea's parliament showed efficiency in countering authoritarian tendencies, unlike the Philippines during the Marcos era.
"Any leader can try to abuse power and test the limits of current political processes. But in the case of South Korea, we see the strength of parliament to immediately negate that declaration," she emphasized.
While the Philippines took decades to recover from martial law's impact, South Korea's swift rejection of Yoon's decree demonstrates how far a nation can progress when it builds robust democratic foundations.
As both countries continue their democratic journeys, they stand as testaments to the enduring human desire for freedom and the importance of learning from history's darkest chapters.
