On 3 December 2024, South Korea’s right-wing president, Yoon Suk-Yeol, declared martial law, a drastic measure rarely invoked in the country's recent history, sending shockwaves through South Korean society and internationally. Presented by the government as a response to alleged ‘threats to public order’, this decision marks a clear attempt to strengthen a declining regime in the face of growing opposition, both popular and parliamentary.
This authoritarian escalation immediately mobilised civil society, trade unions and left-wing movements, denouncing an intolerable attack on democratic freedoms. The event comes at a time of acute social and political tension, exacerbated by the neo-liberal leadership of Yoon Suk-Yeol, which is crystallising the anger of large sections of the population.
Martial law: a tool for political domination under the guise of security
Martial law is, by definition, a suspension of fundamental freedoms in favour of an expanded military and executive power, supposedly in response to an ‘exceptional threat’. However, in the contemporary history of South Korea, this instrument has often been used not to protect the population, but to impose repression and consolidate authoritarian regimes in crisis.
During the 1970s and 1980s, under the dictatorial regimes of Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan, martial law was used to crush political dissent and suppress popular demands, under the false pretext of fighting North Korean ‘communism’. Far from being a tool of public security, it was a weapon of political control, locking down democratic institutions, muzzling the press and criminalising social movements.
Yoon Suk-Yeol's decision is set against this historical backdrop. The justification put forward, referring to ‘imminent public unrest’, lacks any concrete basis and is more akin to a desperate reaction to the loss of political control. This choice reveals a blatant disregard for the rule of law and a desire to use authoritarian means to buttress a declining regime.
A chronology of recent events: a society faced with authoritarianism
Yoon Suk-Yeol's proclamation of martial law was announced on the morning of 3 December 2024, in a presidential decree invoking the need to protect ‘national stability’ in the face of an alleged rise in social tensions. This decision was immediately accompanied by the deployment of the army in the nerve centres of the capital and the country's main cities. Military checkpoints were set up, public gatherings banned and severe restrictions imposed on the media.
However, the response from civil society was immediate and resolute. A few hours after the announcement, the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), one of the main players in social struggles in South Korea, declared an unlimited general strike. Trade union activists, joined by feminist, student and progressive associations, organised spontaneous demonstrations in several cities across the country, despite the bans imposed by the decree, bringing together between 300,000 and 400,000 people in the streets. In Seoul, thousands of people converged on Gwanghwamun Square, braving the military presence to denounce what they saw as a coup d'état.
At the same time, the political opposition in parliament stepped up the pressure on the president, demanding explanations and launching proceedings to challenge the constitutionality of martial law. Under the combined pressure of the street and the institutions, Yoon Suk-Yeol was forced to lift martial law that very evening, in what was a major political humiliation. But far from calming the situation, this about-turn reinforced calls for his resignation and heightened criticism of his government, accused of an authoritarian drift that is jeopardising the country's democratic foundations.
A presidency already weakened by scandals and a reactionary drift
Since his election in 2022, Yoon Suk-Yeol, the figurehead of South Korea's conservative right, has seen his popularity plummet as a result of his devastating economic and political record. The neo-liberal policies he has implemented - deregulation, reduced social protection and support for large conglomerates - have exacerbated social inequalities and made a large proportion of the population more precarious.
Young people and workers are bearing the full brunt of an ever-worsening housing crisis, while the richest, protected by an economic system atrophied by the influence of the {chaebol} - conglomerates of family businesses that generally practise cross-shareholding and therefore hold shares in their own shareholders - continue to grow richer.
Corruption scandals and the appointment of dubious figures have also tarnished its credibility, revealing the deeply clientelist nature of its government. The perception of a regime at the service of economic elites and private interests has reinforced popular distrust and opposition among social and democratic forces.
Yoon has also distinguished himself by openly anti-feminist rhetoric and by his willingness to implement retrograde policies aimed at dismantling feminist advances, such as the abolition of the Ministry of Gender Equality. This frontal attack on women's rights, and more broadly on progressive struggles, has led to strong activist mobilisation and growing opposition, particularly among the younger generations who reject this social regression.
This authoritarian drift, fuelled by a systematic policy of repression of dissident voices, finds its most obvious expression in the current attempted coup. Yoon, far from having the popular base to govern, seems to have chosen the path of intensifying state violence to perpetuate his power, demonstrating once again his inability to respond to the real needs of the people and his rejection of fundamental democratic principles.
A fractured party facing a united population
For several days now, thousands of demonstrators have been gathering outside the South Korean Parliament to demand the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol. However, the impeachment motion tabled by the six opposition parties failed on Saturday 7 December, having not secured the necessary two-thirds majority of 200 votes out of 300.The vote was invalidated after the deputies of the People's Power Party (PPP), the President's party, largely boycotted the ballot, limiting participation to 195 deputies. Only three PPP MPs voted in favour of the motion.
The PPP, the conservative ruling party founded in 2020 by the merger of the Freedom Party of Korea and other minor parties, is deeply weakened. President Yoon Suk Yeol's power grab has exacerbated internal divisions, pitting his supporters against those who back Han Dong-hoon, the party leader. Under growing popular pressure, Han Dong-hoon recently declared that Yoon's early resignation was ‘inevitable’, while claiming to have evidence that the president had attempted to arrest leaders from his own camp. However, the pro-Yoon faction continues to reject the impeachment motion, calling it political revenge, and fears that a second presidential impeachment, following that of Park Geun-hye in 2016, would deal a fatal blow to the right's credibility. These internal struggles reflect a real battle for control of the party, while 73.6% of South Koreans, according to a recent poll, support the impeachment, illustrating the growing hostility of public opinion towards Yoon and the PPP.
In the face of parliamentary failure, popular mobilisation has gathered momentum. Despite freezing temperatures, between 150,000 demonstrators, according to the police, and up to a million, according to the organisers, surrounded the National Assembly. Pro-democracy slogans echoed through the streets, testifying to the growing hostility towards the president, whose abuse of power a few days earlier had deeply shocked public opinion.
In a televised address on Saturday morning, Yoon apologised to the people, explaining his power grab as ‘desperation’ in the face of an opposition that systematically blocked his initiatives. However, he refused to resign, suggesting that he might delegate some of his responsibilities to his party. At the same time, he is under investigation for ‘rebellion’, a crime punishable by death in South Korea, although this has not been applied since 1997.
While the political deadlock persists in parliament, the real battle now seems to be being fought on the streets. South Koreans, buoyed by a massive mobilisation, are reaffirming their rejection of authoritarian excesses and their determination to defend democracy. As for the PPP, it finds itself at a historic crossroads: continue to support an increasingly isolated president or risk precipitating the collapse of the party.
The Gwangju uprising: an echo of past struggles against authoritarianism
The history of South Korea, marked by struggles for democracy and against authoritarian regimes, finds one of its most tragic and symbolic moments in the Gwangju uprising of 1980. This uprising, which saw thousands of South Koreans rise up against a repressive military regime, offers a striking parallel with the current situation under the presidency of Yoon Suk-Yeol.
Today, as in the past, the forces of law and order are responding to democratic aspirations with violence and repression. Far from being a mere page in history, the Gwangju uprising remains an essential reference point for understanding the dynamics of resistance running through South Korean society.
In May 1980, South Korea was under the thumb of a military regime led by Chun Doo-hwan, who had seized power in a coup d'état in December 1979 after the assassination of the dictator Park Chung-hee. The introduction of martial law, the repression of civil liberties and the arrest of political opponents prompted a section of the population to revolt. In Gwangju, a city in the south of the country, thousands of citizens, mainly students and workers, mobilised to protest against the military authorities. In response to the uprising, the army launched a violent crackdown, killing between 500 and 2,000 people in the space of a few days.
The uprising, although bloodily suppressed, became a symbol of popular resistance and the fight for democracy. It is in this context that we can understand the parallels with the current situation under the presidency of Yoon Suk-Yeol. Like Chun Doo-hwan in 1980, Yoon has chosen to impose authoritarian governance, in which democratic rights and individual freedoms are constantly threatened in order to consolidate power.
The memory of Gwangju continues to nourish South Korea's collective memory, a reminder of a time when citizens sacrificed their lives to resist authoritarian rule and try to impose democracy. Today, faced with the authoritarian excesses of Yoon Suk-Yeol, there are many parallels: a population fed up with corruption and social injustice, a government that reacts with repression, and popular resistance movements that, as in Gwangju, rise up to challenge a political system that ignores them. The Gwangju uprising is therefore more than a historical event; it is the mirror of a situation that could be repeated today, in South Korea as elsewhere, given the repetition of authoritarian power dynamics.
Conclusion: a mirror of the past, a challenge for the future
Today, as with the bloody revolt of 1980, South Korean society is at a historic crossroads. The authoritarian drift of President Yoon Suk-yeol and his attempted coup, embodied in the imposition of martial law, are not just a response to current social tensions, but a symptom of a profound crisis in the country's political and economic system, which mirrors the current global situation. Repression and control measures reinforce the worrying tendency to reduce freedom and repress dissident voices, while strengthening an oligarchy that defends its privileges to the detriment of the majority.
This situation, although different in many respects, is a reflection of past struggles and a tradition of popular resistance. It is a reminder that democracy cannot be won once and for all, but must be defended on a daily basis against the attempts of those who seek to concentrate power and annihilate all opposition. Today, faced with the authoritarian excesses of Yoon Suk-Yeol, there are many parallels: a population fed up with corruption and social injustice, a government that reacts with repression, and popular resistance movements that, as in Gwangju, rise up to challenge a political system that ignores them.
The challenge now is not just to resist authoritarian drift, but to rebuild a radically democratic, social, ecological, feminist, anti-racist and anti-imperialist vision of society that meets the real needs of the people. It's about fighting for a fairer society, where economic, social and political rights are not privileges but collective achievement