Democracy, liberty, and states of emergency: Five lessons from South Korea - opinion

Over the past week, the world watched with great interest and concern as dramatic events unfolded across two regimes in very different countries. An “old style” dictatorship in Syria collapsed, while South Korea stood strong against a move toward a “new style” dictatorship.

Unlike Syria, South Korea is considered a high-quality democracy, with high rankings in international indices and broad rights and freedoms for its citizens. When South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, who previously praised liberal democracy, declared martial law, a swift and decisive response from the general public, and subsequently parliament, thwarted the move within hours, leading to the initiation of impeachment proceedings. 

The President was even compelled to admit wrongdoing and issue an apology. At this early juncture, it is already evident that the recent events in South Korea reflect the principles of the academic literature and the expanding body of knowledge regarding the increasing threats faced by democracies in recent decades.

A step by step plan

First, unlike in the past with old dictatorships, in recent decades democracies have been brought to their demise by elected leaders, who gradually transition into undemocratic rulers through countless delimited steps and through the abuse of state institutions. 

They often do so without acknowledging it and while under the facade of democracy along the way – even after democratic collapse. These rulers do not usually prevent elections from being held, for example, but they work hard to ensure they are not free and fair.

Second, states of emergency, including martial law, with their extraordinary powers and the public atmosphere that accompanies them, are a powerful tool in the hands of anti-democratic rulers with the potential to be particularly dangerous, even lethal, for democracy. 

In South Korea, the President claimed his political enemies were sympathizing with North Korea upon imposing martial law, as is characteristic of anti-democratic rulers. In general, the rhetoric of labeling enemies – both foreign and domestic—is a well-known tactic that can be highly effective in efforts to undermine democracy. 

Therefore, vigilance and resistance to the inappropriate use of powers and the rhetoric of emergency are of paramount importance to the survival of democracy.

Third, replacing anti-democratic rulers with leaders who embrace democratic norms is an essential but insufficient step in the path for democratic vitality or resilience in the long term. South Korea is a clear example of this: between 2008 and 2016, the country experienced a democratic backsliding. 

In 2017, under pressure from mass public protest, the parliament impeached corrupt former president, Park Geun-hye, who was even put on trial; in 2018 she was sentenced to 24 years in prison (but was pardoned in December 2021).

The events of the past week illustrate that in order to increase the chances of recovery and inoculation against democratic backsliding, democratic institutions must be strengthened. 

The rule of law, constitutional norms, and free and fair elections must be protected, and it must be ensured that the judiciary and professional legal bodies are independent and functioning, alongside state institutions that operate lawfully and professionally. In addition, the background factors that allow for the weakening of democracy, such as the proliferation of online disinformation and increased political polarization, must be addressed.

Fourth, it is possible to reverse and even recover from a democratic retreat. According to leading international indices, South Korea managed to maintain distinct and high-quality democratic characteristics even after the first anti-democratic wave, and initial reports suggest that it can withstand this second wave as well.

Fifth, the timing and nature of the resistance to an attack on democracy are critical. The South Koreans were wise to defend their democracy at relatively early stages. Broad and determined public resistance is not only perceptive, ethical, and courageous – it can also be very effective. 

Nonetheless, the effectiveness of such resistance depends on at least some of the government institutions, such as parliament, the judicial and legal system, police, and civil service, maintaining their democratic character, alongside key social institutions, such as political parties, the media, and civil society organizations. 

When they are silenced, corrupted, or fall into the hands of anti-democratic rulers, the effectiveness of public protest plummets. In South Korea, the combination of broad and determined public involvement with functioning institutions that are still democratic seems to be effective and successful at keeping democracy afloat. 

In contrast, if a public closes its eyes to these dangers and stands idly by, they may discover that their personal security, liberty, rights, truth, reliable information, and the rule of law no longer stand to serve or protect them, having receded alongside the democratic institutions under which these virtues were upheld. 

The writer is a senior researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute.