Why did South Korea’s president declare martial law? Inside the crisis

South Korea was thrust into political uncertainty on Tuesday as President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law in a move that has raised alarms about the future of South Korea democracy. In a nationally televised address, Yoon described the decision as essential for addressing threats posed by “anti-state elements” and “communist forces.” Critics, however, argue that the martial law declaration undermines democratic values and intensifies political tensions.

Yoon accuses opposition of anti-state actions

President Yoon Suk justified the martial law declaration as necessary to counter alleged obstruction by the opposition Democratic Party, which he accused of fostering a pro-North Korean agenda. He claimed their actions had escalated a political gridlock response, paralysing the government and blocking critical measures like the national budget.

The imposition of military control powers suspends the National Assembly and local councils, leaving the military to oversee governance. General Park An-su, newly appointed as Martial Law Commander, will enforce measures that include restricting political activities and controlling media coverage. This unprecedented move is being viewed by many as a direct challenge to the pillars of South Korea democracy.

Political and economic backlash unfolds

The opposition, led by Lee Jae-myung, condemned the martial law declaration as illegal and an affront to South Korea democracy. Lee voiced fears over the potential misuse of military control powers, warning of a crackdown on opposition members. Even ruling party members like Han Dong-hoon distanced themselves, denouncing the decision as unwarranted.

The announcement also sent shockwaves through the economy. Stock markets reacted negatively, with the iShares MSCI South Korea ETF falling 4.4%, and the won depreciating by 2% against the U.S. dollar. Analysts described the political gridlock response as a contributing factor to the instability, suggesting the prolonged uncertainty could deter foreign investment.

A rare and controversial move

This is the first martial law declaration in South Korea since 1979, a period that saw severe military intervention before the country transitioned to democracy. Observers warn that the reliance on military control powers to resolve political impasses could reverse decades of democratic progress.

Internationally, the crisis has implications for South Korea’s standing as a strategic U.S. ally in the Indo-Pacific. Analysts suggest that the political gridlock response may not only weaken Seoul’s domestic resilience but also raise questions about its reliability in addressing regional security concerns, especially regarding North Korea.

A nation on edge

Public response to President Yoon Suk’s declaration has been marked by protests and rising tensions. Many South Koreans are deeply concerned about the erosion of civil liberties, including press freedom and political transparency, which are integral to South Korea democracy. Calls for a swift resolution are growing, with citizens and political leaders alike urging for a return to democratic norms.

Despite this backlash, President Yoon Suk urged citizens to remain patient, framing the martial law declaration as a temporary measure to restore order. However, critics argue that the lack of a clear timeline for the cessation of military control powers has left the nation divided and uncertain.

South Korea now faces a pivotal moment. The fate of its democracy, long seen as a regional success story, hinges on how the government and military navigate this political gridlock response. Will the country emerge with its democratic values intact, or is this the start of an authoritarian regression?