South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol’s sudden imposition of martial law on Tuesday night represents a watershed moment for South Korea’s democracy, one that could trigger severe political turmoil and violent unrest in the days ahead. 

By citing a need to “eradicate pro-North Korean forces” and uphold constitutional order, Yoon has stepped well beyond the normal bounds of his authority and set the stage for a major democratic crisis.

The declaration raises the risk that Yoon could seek to use the military to crack down on civil liberties and even use violence against protesters, while bringing him into conflict with not only the political opposition but his own party, too.

The chaos also introduces the notable risk of North Korean escalation, with Pyongyang likely to seek to leverage the situation for its political advantage through information campaigns, cyberattacks and potentially even military action.

But the South Korean parliament’s swift vote demanding the lifting of martial law raises the possibility that the crisis might be short-lived, though much still remains uncertain in the aftermath of Yoon’s unprecedented decision.

DOMESTIC RISK FACTORS

In the early morning hours on Wednesday, South Korean security forces blocked access to the National Assembly, while protesters clashed with police at the parliament and outside the presidential office. With a ban on all political activities and parliamentary proceedings halted, frustrated politicians and their supporters could have little choice but to take to the streets.

Gwanghwamun, a common site of mass demonstrations in the capital, will likely see major protests in the coming days, putting activists on a collision course with the police and military. Yoon’s public approval rating sunk under 20% in some polls over the last week, and his declaration threatens to exacerbate the gap between his dictates and public opinion, raising the risk of a violent government crackdown.

Much will depend on whether the military and police follow Yoon’s orders in the coming days. If they comply and crack down harshly on protesters, the situation could quickly spiral out of control. 

But there is also a real possibility that many soldiers and officers, uneasy with suppressing their fellow citizens, could refuse to carry out the president’s commands. 

In that scenario, Yoon’s grip on power would become increasingly fragile, leaving his presidency and the country’s political future in limbo.

Already the chiefs of both South Korea’s opposition party and ruling party have condemned Yoon’s imposition of martial law, with the latter calling on the military to resist the “unconstitutional” declaration. 

And because the National Assembly has already unanimously voted to end the state of martial law, Yoon’s decree now stands on an uncertain footing, increasing the likelihood that the military ignores his will.

NORTH KOREA’S RESPONSE

Pyongyang will relish the chance to exploit the growing chaos in the South, especially in light of the fact that it sent political leaflets condemning Yoon in the days leading up to his decision. 

On the one hand, the North’s propaganda machine may see an opportunity to sew disinformation to deepen political and social divisions in the South. This could result in intensified balloon launches, renewed and expanded loudspeaker broadcasts into South Korea and targeted cyber attacks or agitation efforts. 

More worryingly, Pyongyang may see a window of opportunity to conduct military escalations, such as large-scale missile launches or even limited attacks, to test Seoul’s defenses and command structure while it is distracted by the internal unrest.

Recent weeks have seen GPS jamming initiatives playing out for days at a time, leading to confusion near the Northern Limit Line, and that could be another area for expanded action that could cause problems for civilian ships in the Yellow Sea and activities at Incheon International Airport.

On the other hand, if the North seeks to present itself to South Koreans as the more stable and legitimate governing system, it may choose to hold back on such military steps. 

Pointing out Yoon’s authoritarian approach to domestic politics, Kim can theoretically position himself as a more rational leader than the South Korean president, leveraging the chaos for propaganda targeting not only North Korean citizens but also the ROK public. 

But this approach would not mean that the DPRK simply stands idle: There would still be a strong imperative to enhance information campaigns and targeted cyber operations.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

Even if full-fledged violence is averted, Yoon’s authoritarian power play will severely degrade South Korea’s democratic institutions and global reputation. By outlawing all political activities and protests, he has suspended the civil liberties at the heart of any healthy democracy. 

Warrantless arrests and enhanced control over the press, both of which could take place under the martial law orders, are hallmarks of autocratic systems, not the kind of model democracy Seoul has built over recent decades. It also flies in the face of Yoon’s ambition to see South Korea become a “global pivotal state,” a goal he has repeatedly proclaimed since becoming president.

The martial law order, if it persists, will strain South Korea’s close-knit alliance with the U.S., potentially forcing the Biden administration to distance itself from Yoon’s actions. Washington has made shared democratic values a cornerstone of the bilateral partnership. If the U.S. thinks Yoon is trampling such values, it will become much more difficult to maintain the same level of cooperation.

Amid the domestic unrest, the National Assembly has already directly challenged Yoon’s declaration. 

Article 77 of South Korea’s Constitution states that “When the National Assembly requests the lifting of martial law with the concurrent vote of a majority of the total members of the National Assembly, the President shall comply.” And lawmakers promptly and unanimously voted to lift the martial law just hours after Yoon’s declaration.

The parliament will almost certainly introduce a motion to impeach Yoon over his unconstitutional power grab in the days or weeks to come.

Ultimately, Yoon appears to have vastly overreached in his martial law gambit, which seems ill-conceived and unlikely to succeed. By imposing draconian restrictions on basic freedoms with only a flimsy rationale of countering “pro-North forces,” he has ensured a fierce backlash from opposition groups and civil society.

Unless Yoon can rapidly produce compelling evidence to justify his extreme actions, public opinion will likely turn decisively against him. The longer martial law persists without a clear and legal basis, the harder it will be for Yoon to sustain control over an angry populace ready to defend their hard-won liberties.

History provides an important lesson here. Thirty-five years ago, massive protests brought an end to authoritarian rule and ushered in South Korea’s democratic transition. Those gains will not be easily surrendered. Yoon’s martial law decree may prove to be a serious miscalculation that severely damages South Korea’s democracy, while failing to achieve its intended aims of solidifying the president’s grip on power.

The coming days could represent the greatest test for South Korea’s liberal institutions since the 1980s. Avoiding the worst outcomes of violence and democratic erosion will depend on the choices of the military, the resiliency of the political opposition and Yoon’s willingness to reverse course and step back from the brink.

Edited by Bryan Betts