Protesters demanded the impeachment of South Korea’s president December 12, more than a week after his short-lived declaration of martial law. Photo by AP/Chris Jung/NurPhoto

Voices & Opinion

POV: South Korea’s Crisis Taught Me That Democracy Is Never Guaranteed

Recent declaration of martial law a “cautionary lesson” for the United States, says SSW professor

Last week, I was visiting South Korea during an extraordinary political moment. It felt surreal when South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law on Tuesday, December 3, 2024. It happened right in the middle of a warm family gathering, where three generations of my family members were happily chatting about my nephew’s wedding in Seoul later that week. The breaking news darkened the entire evening. Immediately, I could not help but imagine waking up the next morning to tanks and soldiers with guns patrolling the streets of South Korea. Our excitement and anticipation for the wedding turned into confusion, anxiety, and fear because Yoon implemented martial law, which completely prohibited political gatherings and activities, including any demonstrations. He also declared that all expressions and publications would be controlled by military power. 

One of the worst things that can be done in a democratic society is threatening citizens with violence instead of respecting their differences in opinion and trying to reach a compromise. The president has an immense responsibility to protect freedom and the individual right to express oneself, as well as to respect differences among citizens. Instead, President Yoon declared the use of military force while abusing his power to oppress the opposition party and citizens, failing to resolve conflicts through democratic processes and debate. 

Within several hours after proclaiming martial law, what followed was a powerful reminder of how far South Korea has come. Parliament unanimously rejected the martial law, with assembly members risking their lives to enter the National Assembly despite heavy military presence. This was a sharp contrast to the tragic events of the 1980 Gwangju Massacre. Just this year, Han Kang, a South Korean novelist, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature for her book Human Acts, which vividly depicted how hundreds of innocent and passionate students were killed and thousands injured by the military under martial law imposed by former Korean dictator Chun Doo-hwan. Han Kang powerfully exposed the brutality of the 1980 Gwangju massacre, making martial law no longer an abstract concept but a stark reminder of history. This initial achievement of democracy in South Korea was the result of countless people’s sacrifices—being kidnapped, imprisoned, murdered, and participating in active political movements. 

While reflecting on my experience of being exposed to martial law and witnessing a stunning political crisis, I couldn’t help but think that what is happening in South Korea should be a cautionary tale for all Americans: democracy is never guaranteed. Even in a society that prides itself on freedom and liberty, democracy can be threatened by a leader’s impulsive decisions, misjudged political moves, greed for power, and being surrounded by a small group of people who do not challenge authority. In fact, President Yoon deliberately populated his cabinet with his closest friends—alumni from his high school and college. Like the United States, South Korea is deeply polarized. This extreme division between political parties and the singular mindset within President Yoon’s cabinet allowed martial law to be enacted. 

My stay in South Korea taught me how important it is to take small steps as citizens and how critical it is to work together to hear out our differences in order to understand each other. This means practicing “radical inclusion” by inviting conversations with people who are different from us in terms of their political standing, including views on economics, immigration policy, and LGBTQ rights, to better understand opposing perspectives.

Here in the United States, we held our 2024 presidential election and Trump will be back in the White house soon. I wonder what our future has in store for us. Will our executive, legislative, and judicial branches act independently on behalf of all citizens? Could autocratic or dictatorial behavior arise from any branches, filled with loyalists of Trump’s choosing? Is the Constitution of the United States strong enough to withstand such challenges? 

 Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once stated that “checks and balances exist not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power.” The purpose of the Constitution is “not to avoid friction but to protect the people from autocracy.” 

In both South Korea and the United States, democracy requires vigilance, courage, and collective responsibility. It is not enough to celebrate its existence; we must actively protect it. Freedom, after all, is never guaranteed—it is earned and re-earned every day. 

Today, Yoon faces the consequences of his own actions. He has effectively lost his power to govern, is barred from leaving the country, and faces impeachment and insurrection charges.

By the way, the wedding was beautiful. 

Hyeouk “Chris” Hahm C, a School of Social Work professor and associate dean for research, can be reached at hahm@bu.edu.

“POV” is an opinion page that provides timely commentaries from students, faculty, and staff on a variety of issues: on-campus, local, state, national, or international. Anyone interested in submitting a piece, which should be about 700 words long, should contact today@bu.edu. BU Today reserves the right to reject or edit submissions. The views expressed are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent the views of Boston University.