Politicians reaping what they sow, pt. 2
Their president may have been justifiably impeached, but South Koreans remain divided.
Last week I touched on the situation in France, where Marine Le Pen was found guilty of embezzling European Union funds and is currently barred from running in the upcoming French presidential election (she is appealing the verdict with the result expected by summer 2026, well before the 2027 election).
Today, let’s travel across the globe to East Asia and South Korea, where a former leader was held to account for a blatantly authoritarian move.
The illegality of the situation in South Korea is fairly cut-and-dry, but at the same time points to a country heavily divided.
Facts of the case
Former South Korean president Yoon Suk Yeol attending one of the hearings during the trial.
We at Nuance Matters examined the situation with President Yoon Suk Yeol of South Korea a few times when events went down in December (2024). As a brief refresher:
Late in the evening of December 3, Yoon claimed the opposition was planning an insurrection with North Korea and declared martial law. Members of the National Assembly (South Korea’s legislature) hurried back to the office, wading through waves of protestors and law enforcement, to vote down the motion of martial law. Hours later, Yoon said he had made a grave error in judgement and rescinded the declaration.
Later in December, over two-thirds of the National Assembly, including a dozen members of Yoon’s party, voted for impeachment. Following this vote, Yoon was suspended from office.
Yoon’s case was turned over to the constitutional court, charged with determining whether or not Yoon’s removal was justified. At the time, there were concerns over the impartiality of the court, since half of the seated justices were appointed by Yoon himself. Would these judges give the impeached president a more sympathetic hearing? Yoon needed just three of the eight judges to support him and enable his return to office.
Court’s decision
As it turns out, those concerns about a partisan court were unfounded. Because on April 4, after weeks of debate and growing worries about the state of South Korean democracy, the country’s constitutional court delivered a unanimous verdict, upholding parliament’s decision to impeach Yoon.
Despite Yoon having previously appointed four of the justices, the court ruled unanimously against the former South Korean president.
As he announced the verdict, the acting chief justice said Yoon had violated his presidential duties, betrayed the trust of the South Korean people and presented a very real challenge to democracy. As such, the only logical recourse was to remove Yoon from office.
“Given the grave negative impact on constitutional order and the significant ripple effects of the defendant’s violations, we find that the benefits of upholding the constitution by removing the defendant from office far outweigh the national losses from the removal of a president.”
Yoon’s People Power Party (PPP) said they would “humbly accept” the verdict. Yoon did not attend the hearing in person, but apologized after the rendering, saying he was “deeply regretful and sorry for not being able to meet [South Korea’s] expectations. I will always pray for our beloved country and its people.”
With this decision, Yoon is no longer president nor is he immune from prosecution. As a result, a criminal trial over charges of insurrection began on Monday (April 14) that could result in Yoon, if convicted, face possible life in prison, or even the death penalty.
The reaction
Yoon’s decision and the subsequent constitutional court case have left South Korea divided.
A Gallup Korea poll conducted in March found that, while 60% of South Koreans supported Yoon’s impeachment, there was a marked ideological difference.
Among liberals, 93% wanted Yoon removed.
Among centrist, 69%.
But among conservatives, this fell to just 24%. 72% of conservatives were against impeachment.
Thousands gathered outside the courthouse and were overjoyed when the verdict was announced. Among those who saw Yoon’s actions as a constitutional breach, the verdict (especially the unanimity of the justices) was a sign of South Korean democracy’s strength.
“The fact that it was a unanimous decision of the Constitutional Court, with conservative appointees joining the decision, was a very important expression of not only the clarity of the case, but also the ability to overcome ideological polarization,” [Daniel Sneider, a former journalist in South Korea and current Stanford University lecturer] said.
But there was also a large segment of Yoon supporters who found reason to question the court’s decision. The day after the court ruled against Yoon, his supporters turned out in Seoul in protest, decrying the impeachment as invalid and the court’s decision as an affront to South Korean democracy. To Yoon’s supporters, who are largely older, conservative and anti-communist, the ruling reinforces their view of the judiciary and opposition as communist puppets pushing South Korea ever further in that direction.
Much like the US, where political partisanship has created societal factions, a similar phenomenon is at play in South Korea. Analysts cite YouTube and far-right religious organizations as two of the driving forces behind the indoctrination of fringe values onto the mainstream.
“These far-right churches have always existed on the fringes of South Korean politics, but they’ve never been this close to the mainstream,” [Lee Sangkyung, assistant professor of sociology at Sogang University] said. “They were brought into the limelight by some conservative politicians for their own political gains.”
According to Lee, this alliance between mainstream politicians and extremist religious groups has dangerously blurred the lines between politics and radicalism.
“When elites give these movements legitimacy, they gain real power. There were even claims that Yoon himself watched some of these far-right YouTube channels,” he said.
This has led many Yoon supporters to claim the declaration of martial law was done in the best interest of South Korean democracy, which they say was being attacked by leftist opposition forces and supporters of North Korean.
This partisanship is best evidenced though in the reaction within Yoon’s only party. In 2017, then-president Park Geun-hye, a fellow conservative, was impeached over allegations of corruption. At the time, 60 members of Park’s party joined with the opposition to impeach the president. In December, just 12 voted to impeach Yoon.
What comes next?
South Korea will elect Yoon's replacement on June 3rd. During the intervening two months, the prime minister Han Duck-soo will continue to act as acting president.
Policy-wise, Yoon had been a hawkish voice, working with the Biden administration to improve Korea-Japan relations to counter China’s rising regional power. The opposition leader Lee Jae-myung though, along with his Democratic party of Korea (DPK), supports a more accommodating relationship with North Korea and China and is the odds-on favorite right now to win the snap election.1
If Lee and the DPK win in June, they will have to strike a fine-line between the US (Seoul’s primary military partner)2 and China (it’s most important economic partner).
Consumer confidence in South Korea plummeted in December during the initial crisis. It has rebounded a bit since, but is still negative, indicating Koreans are worried about the state of the economy.
***********************
This all comes at a critical moment for South Korea. The country’s main geopolitical relationships, with enduring rival (North Korea), the regional power (China), frenemy (Japan), and key security partner (USA) are all being put to the test.
If the Trump administration was actually keen on thwarting China in its own backyard, one might think that South Korea would continue to be a key US ally, but political instability since December has left Seoul rudderless and behind the eight ball. South Korea has spent the Trump presidency mired in a political crisis that won’t be solved until early-June, leaving little room or capacity for diplomatic engagement.
And if South Korea decides Trump and the US can no longer be counted on, Seoul could very well pursue the nuclear route. Kim Jung Un won’t be giving up Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons anytime soon, and as long as South Korea’s existential rival has nuclear capabilities, it will feel it needs some sort of nuclear protection. For the past 80 years, that has come in the form of an alliance with the United States. But if that is gone, all bets are off. Around 70% of South Koreans support building nuclear capabilities.
Regardless, one thing is certain: the last thing South Korea needs right now is prolonged domestic political instability and a divided body politic. Formally removing Yoon was the first step along this path, but it will a lot more time and effort to heal the nation.
If you found this informative and appreciate Nuance Matters, consider letting me know by buying me a cup of coffee.
Cheers.
An April 4 poll conducted by Gallup put Lee at 34% support, compared to 9% for the top conservative challenger.
There are currently ~30,000 US military personnel based out of South Korea.