Analysis: South Korea faces significant challenges after Yoon removed
South Korea's constitutional court's decision is less a victory for democracy and more a sign of challenges ahead.
Significance. The Constitutional Court's unanimous decision to remove President Yoon Suk-yeol from office on April 4, 2025, has elicited widespread public reactions, ranging from jubilant celebrations to vehement protests. While this verdict is seen by many as a triumph for democratic accountability, it simultaneously exposes and potentially exacerbates underlying challenges within South Korea's political and social fabric.
The nation's entrenched polarization, the normalization of extremist rhetoric, and the erosion of democratic norms pose significant threats to its stability and governance.
Analysis. President Yoon Suk-yeol's tenure culminated in controversy when he declared martial law on December 3, 2024, citing threats from opposition forces. This unprecedented move involved deploying military personnel to obstruct the National Assembly's functions, leading to immediate domestic and international condemnation. The National Assembly responded by impeaching Yoon on December 14, 2024, suspending his presidential powers and appointing Prime Minister Han Duck-soo as acting president. The Constitutional Court's recent ruling has now formalized Yoon's removal, necessitating a presidential election within 60 days.
Although many view the verdict as a victory for democratic accountability, it also lays bare — and may intensify — the deeper fractures within South Korea’s political and social landscape. Widening polarization, the mainstreaming of extremist rhetoric, and the ongoing erosion of democratic norms present serious threats to national stability and effective governance. The three areas of concern include:
1. Entrenched polarization. The impeachment proceedings have entrenched societal divisions, fostering two opposing narratives: one portraying Yoon as a defender against legislative overreach, and the other depicting him as a violator of constitutional order. This dichotomy has intensified factionalism, with both camps likely to leverage the court's decision to further their agendas. Polarization is fuelled by online misinformation and social media algorithms. The deepening polarization threatens to obstruct constructive political discourse and policy-making, as mutual distrust hampers collaboration across party lines.
Increased extremism. The extensive media coverage surrounding the impeachment has amplified sensationalist content, inadvertently legitimizing extreme viewpoints. The relentless pursuit of attention-grabbing headlines has marginalized moderate perspectives, allowing fringe elements to gain prominence. This environment fosters a political culture where radical positions become normalized, and the incentive for leaders to engage in populist theatrics increases. Future politicians may exploit media dynamics to manipulate public sentiment, prioritizing spectacle over substantive governance.
The greatest risk is a reversal of the trend towards centralization in South Korea’s political environment (something we have seen in other democracies). Reflecting the paths of other economically advanced liberal democracies, South Korea was on a trend towards political centralization - the left increasingly recognizes the need to grow and strengthen the economy, while the right recognizes the need to cater to and address social inequality. The last twelve months have seen both left and right revert to positions more familiar to older generations.
Erosion of democratic norms. The precedent set by Yoon's impeachment saga raises concerns about the resilience of South Korea's democratic institutions. The willingness to circumvent established protocols for political gain undermines the integrity of governance structures. This of course includes Yoon’s declaration of martial law itself, but also includes the over-utilization of the courts in place of politics.
For young South Koreans, the imposition of martial law is now no longer an event that occurred “when our parents were young”. This means that this scale of disruption has to a degree become normalized in the political consciousness. Understandably, for many extra-constitutional politics are associated with the right. This creates a blind spot in the public perception of political action outside democratic norms by the left.
Democratic norms separate the judiciary from the legislature and the executive for a reason - each is a check and balance on the other. Politicization of the judiciary is a constant in all democracies, but most often plays out in the background. The overt politicization of the judiciary through multiple ineffective impeachments strains its capacity to act as a check and balance. This upends democratic norms but is now a feature of the political environment.
Similarly, as an outraged public reacted to Yoon’s declaration of martial law, the Ministry of Defense stated that it would not obey commands for a second declaration of martial law. As recently as the week before the impeachment verdict was given, the Ministry of Defense reiterated this decision. This raises an important question on who is actually in command of South Korea’s military. Is it the president or an army officer who decides on the constitutionality (and public attitude towards) an order? Again, this upends democratic norms but is now a feature and even a public expectation of the political environment.
Internationally, the four months of upheaval has impacted South Korea's diplomatic engagements. Allies and partners now view South Korea’s domestic instability as a sign of unpredictability, which influences bilateral and multilateral relations.
The U.S. Defense Secretary's decision to forgo a visit to Seoul highlights the diplomatic ostracization of South Korea that resulted from the chaos. The focus on internal conflicts diverted attention from pressing foreign policy challenges, affecting South Korea's strategic positioning in regional and global affairs.
South Korea now faces three further months, during which time the election and domestic politics will disrupt South Korea’s diplomatic performance. After this, it will take another three months for a new administration to settle in and commence work on policy implementation. International diplomacy will not wait, and South Korea’s capacity to secure preferred outcomes will be hindered.
Impact. In the immediate term, South Korea must navigate the complexities of organizing a presidential election amidst a polarized electorate. Short-term challenges include managing public demonstrations and ensuring a peaceful transition of power.
Medium-term, the normalization of extremist rhetoric may influence policy directions and governance approaches. Long-term, the erosion of democratic norms could lead to systemic instability, affecting both domestic governance and international relations. Diplomats should closely monitor these developments to assess their implications for regional stability and bilateral engagements.