South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol was impeached by the National Assembly only 11 days after his failed attempt to control the country through martial law. Given South Korea’s experience with martial law under military dictatorships, a return to those days was unacceptable for South Korean citizens, especially those who experienced the country’s undemocratic scenes in the 1980s. The South Korean public turned out in droves to prevent Yoon from destroying their country’s hard-won democracy.
The requirements calling for martial law are clearly stated in the South Korean Constitution and no one could argue that they were met when Yoon declared martial law on December 3. As Yoon brought up anti-state and pro-North Korea forces as the main reason for his decision to declare martial law, North Korea had halted any actions that could be exploited by Yoon for nearly a month after the declaration.
The martial law decree, which was released within an hour after Yoon declared martial law in a televised announcement, was even more deeply shocking to South Koreans. The decree banned all political activities while the martial law command was given full control over the press – a clear signal about how Yoon planned to rule.
More shocking was that, according to the decree, the resident doctors who refused to return to their hospitals could be “executed.” It was so unbelievable that many outside analysts and foreign reporters scrambled to double-check the term, “execute,” inscribed in the martial law decree. The extreme move was one of the main signs that the martial law was being used to pursue the president’s personal vendettas. Yoon had grown increasingly frustrated with resident doctors who went on strike to oppose the administration’s initiative to raise the admission quota at medical schools.
When the parliament successfully passed a bill calling for the impeachment of Yoon, South Koreans believed the country would be able to go back to normal and retain its status as a democratic country. Citizens have a firm awareness of the importance of freedom and democracy – the backbones of the South that clearly differentiate it from North Korea, where the Kim family exercises absolute power.
Rather than going back to normal, however, South Korea has become deeply polarized in the ensuing weeks. In large part that’s due to Yoon’s refusal to take responsibility for his actions, while instead inciting far-right extremists through letters shared by his defense lawyers as well as his speech in the final trial of the Constitutional Court. (Should the Constitutional Court uphold Yoon’s impeachment, he will be permanently removed from office and the country will hold a special presidential election within 60 days after the verdict.)
Pro-Yoon lawmakers in the ruling People Power Party (PPP) and far-right extremists portray the president as a lonely leader who has been falsely charged with treason. In their framing, Yoon is the leader who tried to defend the country’s free democratic system against the anti-state forces – meaning the Democratic Party. In this context, figures on South Korea’s far-right have repeatedly made remarks questioning the election system of the National Election Commission, claiming that it was “impossible” for the DP to win a landslide victory in the 2024 general elections when Yoon still had three more years to serve as president. (Normally, South Korea’s ruling party wins general elections when there are more than three years left before the end of the president’s term.)
It was not surprising to see far-right extremists chanting about a stolen election on their YouTube channels. But when Yoon took drastic action based on the extremists’ remarks, it served as a catalyst for dividing the country and weakening the country’s peaceful and democratic protest culture. Yoon’s supporters have increasingly resorted to violence, an utterly predictable result of the inflammatory language being used by both Yoon and far-right commentators.
Yoon has continuously attempted to avoid consequences for his actions, framing himself as an unjustly persecuted martyr. He initially had the Presidential Security Service threaten force to block the investigation agency’s arrest warrant against him. Once arrested, Yoon has refused to participate in the investigation over his treason charges. He also began to malign the independence of the Constitutional Court, accusing three justices of being biased and unable to objectively rule on his case.
His supporters, encouraged by Yoon, started using violence against both citizens protesting on the streets to demand the Constitutional Court to uphold the impeachment and the police who were trying to maintain the order.
Yoon’s far-right supporters accuse civilian protesters, the police, and even judges and justices of being “pro-China” forces who are trying to oust the Yoon regime and bring South Korea under Beijing’s control. Some far-right extremists have started aggressively demanding that the police deployed in the entrance of the Chinese embassy say some words in Korean as a way to prove their nationality.
These claims are not factually true, but they are lucrative. Some far-right extremists claiming Yoon’s innocence earned roughly $4 million through videos on YouTube, according to data released by Jung Il-young, a DP lawmaker. They earned more revenue from December to February, in the wake of Yoon’s martial law declaration, through the “superchat” feature on YouTube.
As long as far-right extremism is profitable, YouTube talking heads will keep fanning the flames, endangering those who are protesting peacefully on the streets.
In recent weeks, college students in Seoul made statements calling for the Constitutional Court to uphold Yoon’s impeachment. In response, far-right extremists rushed into the campuses and physically impeded the college students who tried to announce their statements. While recording themselves, some of the far-right extremists used violence against college students while others committed vandalism – similar to the way pro-Yoon rioters damaged a courthouse and injured police and civilians after a judge issued an arrest warrant against Yoon on January 19.
South Korea is clearly facing a wave of extremism generated by the far right and loyal supporters of Yoon. Already, these extremists have done significant damage to the country’s democratic and constitutional system.
As a result, there are voices demanding that the media put aside its obsession with being “neutral” or “objective” and instead take a clear stand to protect the country’s system. When Yoon or his supporters make false statements that could affect the verdict of the Constitutional Court or incite violence by far-right extremists, some say South Korea’s media should be upfront about countering such messaging.
Since Yoon assumed office in May 2022, his relationship with certain media outlets – those called “leftist media” by his supporters – has been significantly aggravated due to his administration’s tendency to retaliate against articles critical of Yoon or the first lady. The hot-mic scandal during his trip to New York in September 2022, only four months after he took the presidency, provided an early indication of Yoon’s willingness to target media outlets for running stories he disapproved of.
Due to Yoon’s anti-press stance, South Korea’s ranking dropped from 47th to 62nd place in the annual global press freedom index, according to the ranking announced by Reporters Without Borders in May 2024.
As the Constitutional Court will likely decide on whether to uphold the impeachment of Yoon this month, the press needs to make more vocal reports should Yoon or his supporters intentionally make false statements over the martial law declaration, the National Election Commission, and the anti-state forces – which at this point simply serves as short-hand for anyone who disagrees with Yoon’s policies.
Manipulating public opinion to control power permanently should never occur in South Korea, where the ordinary citizens built a concrete democratic system through bloody sacrifice. Amid a wash of disinformation coming directly from the president, the role of the press is more important more than ever before.
