EVIDENTLY, freedom has its consequences: after transitioning to a democratic system of governance in the late 1980s, fostering a world-class education system, and rapidly building a robust economy, the South Koreans seem to have lost their ability to execute a routine coup.
One was still figuring out how to say ‘my dear countrymen’ in Korean when President Yoon Suk Yeol’s hastily imposed martial law on Tuesday night was abruptly and unceremoniously undone. How could a democracy so young fail at something so simple?
The country is no stranger to martial laws and coups: from the establishment of the Republic of Korea on Aug 15, 1948, it was ruled for some 40 years under a military-authoritarian system with repeated phases of martial law. However, since the South Koreans forced their last military dictator to accept a presidential system in 1987, they seem to have grown quite fond of being democratically ruled.
The power to validate martial law rests with the South Korean National Assembly, which was absolutely not inclined to agree with their president’s decision. The president’s party, the PPP, or People Power Party, to avoid any disambiguation, has since demanded that his cabinet take responsibility and resign. They have specifically asked for the defence minister’s head. The president’s secretaries have already resigned. It is unclear at the moment if the PPP will also ask Mr Yoon to leave the party.
The president already faces impeachment for his hugely unpopular move, and the country’s supreme court will also be examining whether his decision to issue the martial law order fulfilled procedural formalities. The role of the South Korean military has also come across as rather strange. Videos showed them struggling to break windows to storm the South Korean parliament, and they did not fire a single shot even when confronted with force by ordinary citizens. Quite odd, especially in this corner of the world.
Perhaps it is simply that more countries in our region are now realising the futility of rule by force. Take Bangladesh, for example, where the military quietly stepped aside after Sheikh Hasina’s government was overthrown to make way for the interim government. It was not like the Bangladeshi military did not have both precedents and excuses aplenty to take over the country for another tenure, but their generals seem to have realised in time that it would be folly to attempt to subjugate the people at so critical a juncture in their history. It would be constructive for other struggling democracies to also take note.
The appetite for non-democratic systems of governance appears to be shrinking rapidly, even in countries which have seen protracted periods of military rule. Political science suggests this may simply be a consequence of the process of social evolution.
Published in Dawn, December 5th, 2024
