On the night of Dec.3, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeoll made the shocking announcement of a state of emergency, citing "legislative dictatorship" by the Democratic Party as a threat to the constitutional order. In his urgent statement from the Yongsan Presidential Office, Yoon described this as an “anti-state activity planning an uprising,” pledging to protect the Republic of Korea and eradicate “pro-North anti-state elements.” The Defense Ministry simultaneously placed all military units on high alert.
The rationale behind this declaration, however, appears deeply flawed. Yoon referenced impeachment motions initiated by the opposition against 22 government officials, including high-ranking figures like the chairperson of the Audit Board and the Seoul Prosecutor General. Yet, these motions reflect parliamentary procedures enshrined in a democratic system, not acts of rebellion. In fact, Yoon himself bears responsibility for this political turmoil, having repeatedly vetoed legislation and shielded controversial ministers while ignoring the outcry from both lawmakers and citizens. The sheer number of vetoes during Yoon's two-and-a-half years in office surpasses the combined total of all previous presidents since South Korea’s democratization in 1987.
This alarming overreach has drawn widespread condemnation. Over 100,000 demonstrators, predominantly from the MZ generation (Millennials and Generation Z), gathered in front of the National Assembly on Dec. 7 to demand Yoon's resignation. The rally was particularly significant as it drew the participation of younger generations, including teenagers and individuals in their 20s, many of whom were previously disinterested in politics. This incident has not only sparked political engagement among these demographics but also served as a wake-up call, reminding them that South Korea's long-standing democracy can be shattered in an instant if political apathy prevails. The younger generation, with their light sticks and creative slogans, stood as symbols of a newfound resolve to protect democratic values.
The protest’s vibrancy contrasted starkly with the president’s draconian measures. Yoon's claim that the impeachment process and reduced budgets represent an existential threat to the nation seems far removed from reality. The constitution stipulates that a state of emergency can only be declared in cases of war, insurrection, or comparable national crises. None of these conditions exist. Even during the massive protests of 2017, which led to the impeachment of former President Park Geun Hye, no state of emergency was invoked. Yoon’s justification, therefore, raises serious questions about his judgment and commitment to democratic principles.
This misuse of authority evokes dark memories of South Korea’s past. In 1979 and 1980, the New Army regime declared a state of emergency under the guise of suppressing “anti-state elements,” leading to a military coup. Decades later, those responsible – Chun Doo Hwan and Roh Tae Woo – faced justice for their crimes. Today, Yoon’s actions echo this authoritarian legacy, undermining the democratic advancements that South Koreans have fought so hard to achieve.
Even within Yoon’s own People Power Party, dissenting voices have emerged. Party leader Han Dong Hoon criticized the declaration as a “wrong decision” and vowed to oppose it alongside the public. This sentiment underscores the urgent need for unity across political lines. According to Article 77 of the Constitution, parliament can overturn a state of emergency with a majority vote. While the Democratic Party holds a majority, bipartisan support is crucial to restore constitutional order and prevent further erosion of public trust.
South Korea's true strength lies in its people. The vibrant and diverse protests by the MZ generation signal a rejection of outdated authoritarianism and an embrace of democratic values. Yoon’s state of emergency, grounded in paranoia rather than principle, is a betrayal of the nation he was elected to serve.
Furthermore, this incident has become a turning point in fostering political consciousness among the youth. It underscores the fragility of democracy and the need for active participation to safeguard it. The significant turnout of young people in recent rallies reflects their growing awareness that preserving democratic institutions is their responsibility, too. Notably, South Korea’s protests, often characterized by creativity and order, have captured the attention of the global community. Many foreign observers have remarked on how these rallies resemble the excitement and organization of K-pop concerts, showcasing South Korea’s unique approach to civic engagement. This parallel between democracy and the globally celebrated Korean Wave (Hallyu) is a testament to how deeply democracy is embedded in South Korea’s cultural achievements.
The Korean Wave, which has become a global phenomenon through K-pop, film and television, is built on the foundation of democracy. Just as K-pop concerts are orderly yet filled with passion, South Korea's impeachment protests reflect a modern trend in civic participation that resonates worldwide. This remarkable blending of cultural identity and political engagement underscores the responsibility of South Koreans to protect their democratic legacy, not just for themselves but as an inspiration for the world.
History has shown that regimes built on fear and repression cannot endure. It is imperative that parliament acts decisively to terminate this unconstitutional state of emergency and remind Yoon that the presidency is not a personal fortress but a position of service to the people. Now more than ever, South Korea’s democratic legacy, rooted in resilience and wisdom, must be preserved, ensuring that power is wielded with accountability, not arrogance.
