South Korea's Democracy Saved Itself (2024)(carnegieendowment.org)
carnegieendowment.org
South Korea's Democracy Saved Itself (2024)
https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2024/12/south-korea-democracy-yoon-protests?lang=en
9 comments
He's an Ajussi - wouldn't be surprised he can't use Word /s
The sheer contempt the older generation of Korean politicians have to democratic norms is disheartening but sadly not surprising.
While all countries show hallmarks of gerontocracy, I feel it's much more stark in South Korea given how rapidly SK shifted from developing to developed.
Hopefully the younger generation of Koreans can finally take the mantle of power, but I'm pessimistic about it - at best it'd be scions from monied families that have done well since the Park era if not all the way to the Japanese era.
The sheer contempt the older generation of Korean politicians have to democratic norms is disheartening but sadly not surprising.
While all countries show hallmarks of gerontocracy, I feel it's much more stark in South Korea given how rapidly SK shifted from developing to developed.
Hopefully the younger generation of Koreans can finally take the mantle of power, but I'm pessimistic about it - at best it'd be scions from monied families that have done well since the Park era if not all the way to the Japanese era.
Yoon is arguing some ridiculous excuses which would have been funny if this was not serious.
Sounds like a standard "democratic leader" these days.
Sounds like a standard "democratic leader" these days.
Is anyone else claiming to have made copy and paste error in, say, executive orders?
I'm reminded of https://www.forbes.com/sites/ljkelly/2017/07/18/how-fontgate...
This is golden. Thank you so much.
There's some accusations along those lines: https://futurism.com/trump-admin-accused-ai-executive-orders. It wouldn't be too far fetched to assume that rushing to release these so quickly may have involved some shortcuts resulting in typos and a lack of polish.
winternewt(1)
Mistakenly pasting in martial law is surely grounds for impeachment in its own right. Ignorance of what law you're passing is not an excuse.
> Ignorance of what law you're passing is not an excuse
Pretty much every elected legislature ever uses this excuse and gets away with it again and again and again at each election cycle. They will fight tooth and nail to prevent a precedent to the tune of "it's your job to know" even if the precedent is against the executive because even that is too close for comfort.
Pretty much every elected legislature ever uses this excuse and gets away with it again and again and again at each election cycle. They will fight tooth and nail to prevent a precedent to the tune of "it's your job to know" even if the precedent is against the executive because even that is too close for comfort.
Clearly he should've just added a disclaimer like ever single one of Trump's EOs [1].
"Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or" [2]
Or all the generic legal documents that say "void where prohibited by law" and etc. In general, writing a document that complies with the law seems to be not a requirement.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_executive_orders_in_...
[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20250121003847/https://www.white...
"Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or" [2]
Or all the generic legal documents that say "void where prohibited by law" and etc. In general, writing a document that complies with the law seems to be not a requirement.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_executive_orders_in_...
[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20250121003847/https://www.white...
Proof once more that the enemies of Democracy can be both foreign and domestic.
> The democracy movement isn’t just history but is also actively taught in schools as part of national identity.
Education is the beginning. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." [1]
> Conservative leaders now have to choose between democratic principles and party loyalty.
To choose party (or any other) loyalty over democratic principles and the constitution is treason. For any voters to support such a party implies a deep failure to instill democratic principles and knowledge of history.
[1] _ https://www.monticello.org/exhibits-events/blog/eternal-vigi...
> The democracy movement isn’t just history but is also actively taught in schools as part of national identity.
Education is the beginning. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." [1]
> Conservative leaders now have to choose between democratic principles and party loyalty.
To choose party (or any other) loyalty over democratic principles and the constitution is treason. For any voters to support such a party implies a deep failure to instill democratic principles and knowledge of history.
[1] _ https://www.monticello.org/exhibits-events/blog/eternal-vigi...
The Dutch constitution very clearly states that man and woman are equal.
Yet we have small ultra orthodox Christian party in parliament who take a literal interpretation of their Bible. Amusingly they swear allegiance to said constitution on the Bible...
The high court has repeatedly over the last 150 years ruled that the constitution> all gods and religions. I suppose one could take a principled view that religious folk commit treason but honestly they're pretty harmless really.
Yet we have small ultra orthodox Christian party in parliament who take a literal interpretation of their Bible. Amusingly they swear allegiance to said constitution on the Bible...
The high court has repeatedly over the last 150 years ruled that the constitution> all gods and religions. I suppose one could take a principled view that religious folk commit treason but honestly they're pretty harmless really.
Having something as a law (or even part of a constitution) shouldn’t necessary forbid conversation about it? I’m not sure where the line should be disqualifying the conversation.
> The high court has repeatedly over the last 150 years ruled that the constitution> all gods and religions.
The Dutch do many things better. ^_^
> one could take a principled view that religious folk commit treason but honestly they're pretty harmless really.
I agree that it is usually so... until they start making public policy.
The Dutch do many things better. ^_^
> one could take a principled view that religious folk commit treason but honestly they're pretty harmless really.
I agree that it is usually so... until they start making public policy.
>To choose party (or any other) loyalty over democratic principles and the constitution is treason. For any voters to support such a party implies a deep failure to instill democratic principles and knowledge of history.
Being loyal to one's party is something they all do (except for a handful of people who may very well be turncoats). You can't reasonably interpret hiring "loyalists" to positions that you have every legal right to fill as anti-democracy, in general, because everyone does it. You certainly wouldn't expect someone to tolerate disloyal and disobedient subordinates if they had the choice, would you? There needs to be some discretion but many jobs are promised to supporters long before any election.
Being loyal to one's party is something they all do (except for a handful of people who may very well be turncoats). You can't reasonably interpret hiring "loyalists" to positions that you have every legal right to fill as anti-democracy, in general, because everyone does it. You certainly wouldn't expect someone to tolerate disloyal and disobedient subordinates if they had the choice, would you? There needs to be some discretion but many jobs are promised to supporters long before any election.
Loyalty above the law is corruption. You can't have a modern state without some degree of loyalty to the concept of the democratic state itself, over and above personal ties.
I'm not suggesting that anyone should break the law. (There are some rare circumstances where that is justifiable, but I'm not getting into that right now. It's basically irrelevant.) I sense that someone is trying to connect the South Korea wannabe dictator to one of our political parties, and it's not even close to comparable. Call me when the Bill of Rights is suspended or something.
Does the 14th amendment count? Or only the first ten?
Anchor babies should not be a thing, so no I don't care if an illegal immigrant family with an anchor baby is deported. There is some debate as to whether the popular interpretation of the 14th Amendment is even correct to begin with, as it was obviously intended to grant citizenship to ex-slaves and not criminal aliens.
There is no debate, and framing it as such is disingenuous. The interpretation not “popular”, it’s been adjudicated in courts time and time again, for well over a hundred years, and there are basically no exceptions to the birthright clause of the amendment. Of course this doesn’t strictly guarantee the current Supreme Court will follow precedent, but given the fact it’s part of the constitution and not just a law, and that it’s been in multiple court cases with a lot of precedent, I assume they would reject that interpretation and make it clear to change it requires another amendment, which is extremely unlikely in the current government.
A child born in the USA is not a "criminal alien" regardless of the circumstances of their birth. There is no federal criminal law against being born. The parents could be legally classified as criminal aliens in some cases but that has no bearing on the child as a legally separate person.
As a child is dependent on its parents, they must go with their parents. I don't think they automatically deserve citizenship just because their parents happened to sneak into the country, and their parents shouldn't be given a pass just because they dared to break our laws to get in and drop a child on us.
And people wonder why the birth rate is down when children are demonized this much.
[deleted]
Maybe they should just remove the president's post altogether? Seriously, almost every one of recent SK presidents were convicted of something after they left the post. How... why do such people regularly keep getting elected there, and why do they even bother to, since there is already an established pattern of criminal convictions, do they think they'll break it and get away with whatever they did?
It's not just presidents. You can't go from receiving foreign aid from Ethiopia one day to being a glittering rich megalopolis the next day without a culture of corruption, nepotism, and selfishness sticking around for a few generations afterward.
The good news is every year things improve by a huge %. Younger Koreans are more and more honest, reasonable, kind-hearted and selfless.
Just give it another generation or two.
The good news is every year things improve by a huge %. Younger Koreans are more and more honest, reasonable, kind-hearted and selfless.
Just give it another generation or two.
That sounds great but it makes you wonder, how are they going to solve their extremely bad birth rate? Within one generation they will be back to 1950s population levels. Would it matter if they shed the corruption and chaebols (which is an amazing accomplishment if it comes true) if there is no one around to see it?
[1]:https://www.populationpyramid.net/republic-of-korea/2023/
I guess unique challenges will call for unique solutions. Maybe 50% of the population of 2100 will be robots or something and we will be living in Star Wars.
[1]:https://www.populationpyramid.net/republic-of-korea/2023/
I guess unique challenges will call for unique solutions. Maybe 50% of the population of 2100 will be robots or something and we will be living in Star Wars.
> You can't go from receiving foreign aid from Ethiopia one day to being a glittering rich megalopolis the next day without a culture of corruption
What? Corruption would be a drag on economic growth, not a boost to it...
What? Corruption would be a drag on economic growth, not a boost to it...
There has actually been quite a number of studies like
Abstract: Several cross-country studies have found that corruption is detrimental to economic growth, but the
findings are not universally robust. We utilize the economic freedom index to examine if corruption can facilitate
growth by allowing entrepreneurs to avoid inefficient policies and regulations when economic freedom is limited.
Using regression analysis, we find that corruption is growth enhancing when economic freedom is most limited but
the beneficial impact of corruption decreases as economic freedom increases. Not all areas of economic freedom
affect the corruption-growth relationship equally. In particular, we find that when we analyze individual areas of
economic freedom the beneficial effect of corruption disappears most quickly when the size of government and the
extent of regulation decrease.
See: Middle East
Korea didn't become prosperous "because of" corruption and nepotism necessarily, but at least "in addition to".
And now that it is prosperous and the rising tide has lifted all ships, it'll be a few more generations before they can largely clean up the corruption and nepotism that has been along for the ride.
And now that it is prosperous and the rising tide has lifted all ships, it'll be a few more generations before they can largely clean up the corruption and nepotism that has been along for the ride.
> Just give it another generation or two
Until they go extinct?
Until they go extinct?
It’s not political corruption but political theatre. SKorea is controlled by a few chaebols. They keep the gen pop “entertained” so they can do what they want behind the scene. The closest they got to the chaebol is when they sent the Samsung dude for a couple of years Escobar style. There’s a very famous footage of Ban Ki-moon, former UN secretary and someone universally celebrated, kowtowing to the most hated political figure in SKorea in Chun Do-Hwan. That’s how it goes in SKorea. It’s a miracle that their economy continues to flourish in spite of political turmoil and social malaise.
That's a reductive take.
Chaebols are very strong in Korea, but that undermines the relative strength of the (commissioned) Military and the Prosecutor's office in Korean society.
Both of these organizations are very traditional and conservative in mindset, but also have extremely tight and cliquish behaviors, and will tend to rally around someone who is a member of the "in-group".
And this is why Yoon has survived for so long, because significant portions of the political and quasi-civil society supported and would have enabled his attempted coup.
Chaebols are very strong in Korea, but that undermines the relative strength of the (commissioned) Military and the Prosecutor's office in Korean society.
Both of these organizations are very traditional and conservative in mindset, but also have extremely tight and cliquish behaviors, and will tend to rally around someone who is a member of the "in-group".
And this is why Yoon has survived for so long, because significant portions of the political and quasi-civil society supported and would have enabled his attempted coup.
That’s a reductive take.
If we assume that the country isn't going to become authoritarian and will have some form of democratic elections, if you get rid of the president's post, you need an equivalent person and the shift in responsibilities. If the system changed to not elect the leader directly, but indirectly like in Germany, it wouldn't just change the possibility of someone corrupt getting into power, just the way they get into power. With that in mind, what would you replace it with?
Presidental systems with real power behind the president has only one success story: USA. And we'll see if it's still a success story after these four years.
Meanwhile parliamentary systems have a much stronger track record imo.
Meanwhile parliamentary systems have a much stronger track record imo.
yeah south korean president has wild track record given how advance south korea are like they almost turned into "north korea" dictatorship, thats seriously wild things are
And haven't all of them been pardoned for all the wild shit they've done?
I remember seeing Americans cheering when the president got impeached, going on about how "this is how you do it in a democracy", even though there's a pretty decent chance that the next guy or the guy after him will just pardon him.
I remember seeing Americans cheering when the president got impeached, going on about how "this is how you do it in a democracy", even though there's a pretty decent chance that the next guy or the guy after him will just pardon him.
> There are approximately 28,500 U.S. military personnel stationed in South Korea...
> A fully functioning UN Command is at the top of the chain of command of all forces in South Korea, including the U.S. forces and the entire South Korean military...
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea#United_States_cont...
Despite the headline, it would seem fair to claim that the US is acting as an anchor here to the South Korean government.
I wouldn't suggest there is anything improper here since the South Korean army is around half a million strong and can do what it wants, but in the event of a coup I imagine the US would be playing a significant deciding factor. How the military moves is what ultimately matters in an uprising, particularly the opinions of the top generals.
> A fully functioning UN Command is at the top of the chain of command of all forces in South Korea, including the U.S. forces and the entire South Korean military...
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea#United_States_cont...
Despite the headline, it would seem fair to claim that the US is acting as an anchor here to the South Korean government.
I wouldn't suggest there is anything improper here since the South Korean army is around half a million strong and can do what it wants, but in the event of a coup I imagine the US would be playing a significant deciding factor. How the military moves is what ultimately matters in an uprising, particularly the opinions of the top generals.
> but in the event of a coup I imagine the US would be playing a significant deciding factor
Yes, but on which side?
Yes, but on which side?
[deleted]
[deleted]
The US military presence is from before the country’s current democratic transition, and did nothing to prevent past coup.
>did nothing to prevent past coup
That's the joke. US consistently supported SK coup(er)s (there's been several) as long as the couper is anti-communists / aligned with US geopolitical interests. The last two in late 70s were post Combined Forces Command, and including this one, with capacity of US intelligence, it's hard to rationalize US did not know what was going to happen.
That's the joke. US consistently supported SK coup(er)s (there's been several) as long as the couper is anti-communists / aligned with US geopolitical interests. The last two in late 70s were post Combined Forces Command, and including this one, with capacity of US intelligence, it's hard to rationalize US did not know what was going to happen.
Their first president, quickly turned dictator, grew up in the US
The korean war veterans must have felt so proud..
The korean war veterans must have felt so proud..
What concerns me the most is that I haven't heard talks of fixing the core problem, which was Korean's constitution.
You can argue if what Yoon did was illegal or not, but it was close enough to legal that the military obeyed his orders.
It's just out of a strike of luck that the martial law was retired.
That part of the constitution seems ludicrous to me, it means their democracy is in constant danger; it's amazing that both parties haven't prioritized fixing it.
You can argue if what Yoon did was illegal or not, but it was close enough to legal that the military obeyed his orders.
It's just out of a strike of luck that the martial law was retired.
That part of the constitution seems ludicrous to me, it means their democracy is in constant danger; it's amazing that both parties haven't prioritized fixing it.
Just barely. Had the military been just a bit more indoctrinated, they may have started shooting. Which, as far as I understand, were the instructions they received. If nothing else, if the legislators weren't able to get in, this would have gone a whole other way, and the coup could easily have been successful.
It's not about military indoctrination but the popularity of the leader. Yoon is exceptionally unpopular. If he had 80% approval, instead, he would probably now be the dictator of The People's Democratic Republic of South Korea.
Without that approval the best you're looking at (from his perspective) is mass unrest which an opportunistic nation like their neighbor could foment, support, and exploit.
Without that approval the best you're looking at (from his perspective) is mass unrest which an opportunistic nation like their neighbor could foment, support, and exploit.
If you've got 80% support in a democracy you don't need to declare martial law and overthrow the legislature: If you're that popular your party will easily secure a sizeable majority in the legislature and you can pass any law you want.
In fact, DPRK anticipated that Yoon Suk-yeol might attempt to ignite conflict on the peninsula to justify imposing martial law. Therefore, DPRK preemptively severed the roads between the two countries to prevent this from happening. Although DPRK is often scorned by the West, it is far more rational and stable than many other countries.
https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/c70wgxr4zndo
https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/c70wgxr4zndo
In the interest of Poe's law: that's not why DPRK has blown up the roads. It's because the current leader does not anticipate any cooperation or reunification with ROK in the future.
Very rational, except that the leadership is starving the population, banned the internet, and executes people by strapping them to anti-aircraft guns.
Oh and has send thousands of its citizens to die in Ukraine.
Oh and has send thousands of its citizens to die in Ukraine.
The history of North Korea is quite interesting. The mass starvation was in the 90s and mostly caused by US sanctions. They were wholly dependent on foreign imported oil both as fuel and as a way to make fertilizer with the USSR as their primary source.
When the USSR collapsed in the 90s, they no longer had any source for oil owing to sanctions. Their farming was thus severely impaired, and starvation was the predictable result.
We then post facto gave them emergency aid, likely with the idea of turning the people against their government and to the people starving them for geopolitics. Shockingly, it didn't work.
Their deepening relationship with Russia is mostly just a return to the past.
I think this is yet another example of how sanctions are quite a useless tool. If we'd straight up gone for the carrot (perhaps simply trading oil for arms at fair market rates) instead of waiting to starve people first, North Korea could very possibly be a friendly nation today.
Of course this sounds absurd only because most people don't realize South Korea was also under brutal dictatorships for most of its life since the Korean War (their first democratic election was in 1987) - big difference is those dictatorships were backed by the West and allowed to engage in more normal trade and development.
Realpolitik is far dirtier (and often painfully myopic) than most realize. I'd love to read a textbook about current times from a few hundred years from now...
When the USSR collapsed in the 90s, they no longer had any source for oil owing to sanctions. Their farming was thus severely impaired, and starvation was the predictable result.
We then post facto gave them emergency aid, likely with the idea of turning the people against their government and to the people starving them for geopolitics. Shockingly, it didn't work.
Their deepening relationship with Russia is mostly just a return to the past.
I think this is yet another example of how sanctions are quite a useless tool. If we'd straight up gone for the carrot (perhaps simply trading oil for arms at fair market rates) instead of waiting to starve people first, North Korea could very possibly be a friendly nation today.
Of course this sounds absurd only because most people don't realize South Korea was also under brutal dictatorships for most of its life since the Korean War (their first democratic election was in 1987) - big difference is those dictatorships were backed by the West and allowed to engage in more normal trade and development.
Realpolitik is far dirtier (and often painfully myopic) than most realize. I'd love to read a textbook about current times from a few hundred years from now...
If you consume more information from South Korean media, you'll know they not only execute people with anti-aircraft guns but also with dogs.
A cynical interpretation could be that it is the game-theory optimal minmaxing play for their current game state to brutally exploit Human Resources.
We require more minerals…
We require more minerals…
Yeah, I don't think you can call blowing up your connections to the outside world in these circumstances "rational".
He’s just too incompetent, utterly failed Military Coup 101:
1. Cut communications;
2. Make sure the troops you send to capture critical objectives are hardcore loyalists (or at least paid exceedingly well).
1. Cut communications;
2. Make sure the troops you send to capture critical objectives are hardcore loyalists (or at least paid exceedingly well).
well, do people forget that Yoon was also voted by South Korea's Democracy
Semantics and language are actually important here, IMHO. Democracy-"the system" saved itself here. This is somewhat distinct from who or what people vote for.
This is what I mean by the advantage of the "democratic system." Democracy can always save a country from the mess. As for why it’s in the mess, don’t worry about that.
Presidents may be impeached, removed from office, or even die, but the system will never fail.
Presidents may be impeached, removed from office, or even die, but the system will never fail.
> Democracy can always save a country from the mess.
Unless the people themselves want to give up on democracy and… oh, I don't know, let's pick a random example out of thin air… storm government buildings to stop the process to keep their desired leader in power.
Unless the people themselves want to give up on democracy and… oh, I don't know, let's pick a random example out of thin air… storm government buildings to stop the process to keep their desired leader in power.
To be fair (however painfully), a healthy percentage of those people believed they were there to save democracy.
We all believe things that are poorly-supported by facts, possibly serving an agenda we don't understand, and are clearly stupid when viewed rationally and with better information.
I will not defend their actions, but I have some compassion for the well-meaning dupes, and I wish the legal process could neuter their manipulator-perpetrators.
We all believe things that are poorly-supported by facts, possibly serving an agenda we don't understand, and are clearly stupid when viewed rationally and with better information.
I will not defend their actions, but I have some compassion for the well-meaning dupes, and I wish the legal process could neuter their manipulator-perpetrators.
Yeah, they failed - the system saved itself again
Hitler was elected. Putin was elected, and supposedly is still being elected.
Just a technical nitpick: Hitler was appointed by President Hindenburg, not directly elected. However Hindenburg was directly elected and Hitler was leader of the party that received the most votes (though still a minority).
[deleted]
This is now soon to be politically incorrect in America given the sitting president now avoided such a fate.
Has it really? I don't think the "movie is over" (as we colloquially say in India) and this was just the "opening scene" than the "climatic finish" that some think it is.
South Korea is an oligarchic democracy, and, as the paper points out, has developed deep political divisions between the left- and the right- in its society.
The deposed South Korean President was a favourite of the Biden administration ( https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2022/07/yoon-suk-yeol-i... ) because of his pro-western and pro-business values and his political willingness to militarily commit to western / US foreign policies against China and Russia. (He is the first South Korean President to attend a NATO summit, has been public about his desire that South Korea be a part of an "Asian NATO" - Quad + Jarokus + AUKUS - supported sanctions against Russia and has even supplied Ukraine with the artillery they badly needed).
Some of Biden's and Yoon's foreign policies seem to have backfired on South Korea as North Korea's near-total alienation, that previous US and South Korean administration had achieved, to economically and military weaken it, is now over. (Russia and North Korea have signed a new political and military alliance, committed to help each other if the other is attacked and, North Korean troops will not only get upgraded armaments from Russia but are also getting battle trained in real warfare conditions in the Russia-Ukraine war). Many South Koreans are not thrilled about this, because the most serious and imminent threat for South Korea has always been from the North Koreans. While many South Koreans understand that a military alliance with the US means that they cannot disregard US foreign policy concerns, many in the left- are concerned that there was still enough room to manoeuvre to not aggravate both China and Russia so much that they are now openly hostile against South Korea too.
I believe this was one of the underlying tension between the Yoon's administration and the opposition - instead of trying to create a democratic political consensus in South Korea about his policies, he suddenly decided to deal with valid criticism about his domestic and foreign policies by attacking the opposition as “pro-North anti-state forces”. (This was stupid as even though latent anti-war sentiment amongst the South Korean working class is high, the left-leaning opposition Democratic Party are also inclined to the idea of joining the US lead anti-China military alliance and a consensus on foreign policies atleast was very much possible.)
His political bungling and attempt to tarnish the opposition as North Korean stooge now means forming political consensus will be now more difficult and further polarise South Korean polity, thus allowing Russia, China and the US to interfere more in their political affairs.
I fear democracy in South Korea is still under threat, just it is in many other parts of the world facing similar political polarisation.
South Korea is an oligarchic democracy, and, as the paper points out, has developed deep political divisions between the left- and the right- in its society.
The deposed South Korean President was a favourite of the Biden administration ( https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2022/07/yoon-suk-yeol-i... ) because of his pro-western and pro-business values and his political willingness to militarily commit to western / US foreign policies against China and Russia. (He is the first South Korean President to attend a NATO summit, has been public about his desire that South Korea be a part of an "Asian NATO" - Quad + Jarokus + AUKUS - supported sanctions against Russia and has even supplied Ukraine with the artillery they badly needed).
Some of Biden's and Yoon's foreign policies seem to have backfired on South Korea as North Korea's near-total alienation, that previous US and South Korean administration had achieved, to economically and military weaken it, is now over. (Russia and North Korea have signed a new political and military alliance, committed to help each other if the other is attacked and, North Korean troops will not only get upgraded armaments from Russia but are also getting battle trained in real warfare conditions in the Russia-Ukraine war). Many South Koreans are not thrilled about this, because the most serious and imminent threat for South Korea has always been from the North Koreans. While many South Koreans understand that a military alliance with the US means that they cannot disregard US foreign policy concerns, many in the left- are concerned that there was still enough room to manoeuvre to not aggravate both China and Russia so much that they are now openly hostile against South Korea too.
I believe this was one of the underlying tension between the Yoon's administration and the opposition - instead of trying to create a democratic political consensus in South Korea about his policies, he suddenly decided to deal with valid criticism about his domestic and foreign policies by attacking the opposition as “pro-North anti-state forces”. (This was stupid as even though latent anti-war sentiment amongst the South Korean working class is high, the left-leaning opposition Democratic Party are also inclined to the idea of joining the US lead anti-China military alliance and a consensus on foreign policies atleast was very much possible.)
His political bungling and attempt to tarnish the opposition as North Korean stooge now means forming political consensus will be now more difficult and further polarise South Korean polity, thus allowing Russia, China and the US to interfere more in their political affairs.
I fear democracy in South Korea is still under threat, just it is in many other parts of the world facing similar political polarisation.
For example, martial law decree no. 1 said "Activities of national assembly, local assemblies, political parties, and all political activities such as political association, assembly, demonstration are hereby forbidden". Decree was widely published and it is a strong evidence that Yoon intended to violate the constitution and disable the legislative branch. Yoon is now claiming "it was copy and pasted from old authoritarian martial law decrees by mistake". No, really. It doesn't make any sense by itself, but moreover, this can't possibly be the case because South Korean local rule was introduced after democratic transition so no mention of "local assemblies" is possible in old decrees. I mean, lying is pretty difficult, reality has surprising details...