Where does South Korea's democracy go from here?

Early Wednesday morning I woke up for some reason and turned on the television — only to be blindsided by the mind-blowing news out of Seoul.

Just the night before, President Yoon Suk Yeol announced a “state of emergency” and declared martial law. As troops attempted to take control of the National Assembly, some 190 lawmakers passed a resolution demanding martial law to be lifted. Watching the grave situation and still in bed, I had to ask myself whether I was dreaming of the 1980s.

The area around South Korea's National Assembly descended into chaos. But early on Wednesday, Yoon abruptly announced he was lifting the state of emergency he had just imposed hours before, citing the parliamentary resolution.

Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba's response was very diplomatic, saying, "We have been monitoring the situation with particular and grave concern" and "We will do everything possible to ensure the safety of Japanese nationals residing in the country." The shock and surprise felt in Japan was summed up nicely when he said, "with particular and grave concern."

So what exactly happened at the Blue House, the official residence of South Korea’s president?

Yoon tried to justify his actions by saying that the government had become paralyzed due to opposition parties' tactics, which he described as treasonous and could potentially lead to civil war. He further stated that the National Assembly was trying to paralyze the nation through a legislative dictatorship and overthrow the liberal democratic system. Yoon went on to say that his focus would be on quickly purging “anti-national” forces while minimizing the inconvenience for law-abiding citizens.

It’s highly doubtful that many South Koreans will believe the president’s logic.

The actions of the opposition in South Korea may be “anti-governmental,” but by no means are they “anti-national.” I wonder if Yoon is also responsible for the paralysis in the nation's politics and the growing frustration among the people. Martial law may have been an option in the 1980s, but this is the 21st century. It is not a move that should be taken lightly by the president of a democratic country like South Korea.

Why did Yoon reverse himself so quickly? The simple answer is he is not a “military man.”

Yoon said: “I hereby declare a state of emergency with martial law in order to purge the communist forces of North Korea and the vicious pro-North anti-national forces at a stroke and to protect the free constitutional order.”

Ironically, however, his martial law proclamation, which claimed to protect the free constitutional order, did exactly the opposite.

The proclamation ordered that all political activities, including those of the National Assembly and local assemblies, political parties, political associations, rallies and demonstrations, be prohibited. It also prohibited any acts that deny or attempt to overthrow the liberal democratic system, including the spread of false news, manipulation of public opinion and false incitement. All speech and publishing were to be controlled by martial law, while strikes, sabotage and assembly acts that promote social disorder were forbidden. The proclamation also stated that good citizens should take measures to minimize inconvenience in their daily lives and violators would be arrested, detained and searched without a warrant and punished according to martial law.

If the South Korean president had been a former general, he would have approached these measures more relentlessly and with a long-term strategy, as the military operates according to the orders of a supreme commander. However, because Yoon has no such background — having been exempted from mandatory service due to a medical condition — he may not have fully understood the gravity of using the military in such a manner within a democratic system. As a result, Yoon was too quick to declare martial law and just as quick to reverse it, highlighting his lack of military experience and understanding.

Why did he dig himself such a deep political hole? The answer to that is Yoon is not really a “politician” either.

He was a former attorney general and a jurist, not a seasoned politician. Lacking experience in navigating the complexities of political life, he may not have been prepared for the harsh realities of political adversity. While some criticize Yoon as a “dictator” who refuses to listen to others, that may not be entirely accurate. It’s more likely that he simply doesn’t grasp the subtleties of playing the political game.

The only saving grace here is that Yoon is a "diplomat," so there will likely be no negative impact on Japan-Korea or Korea-U.S. relations.

As he declared martial law, he said: “There will be no change in South Korea’s foreign policy fulfilling its responsibilities and contributions to the international community.”

He was probably sincere when he said this. The real question is whether Yoon can maintain this diplomatic stance as South Korean politics evolve. As the saying goes, “All politics is local,” which suggests that South Korean diplomacy is likely to stagnate in the short term.

On the other hand, there is reason to be cautiously optimistic about Japan-South Korea relations in the medium to long term. Some experts are concerned that if a progressive president is elected in the next South Korean presidential election, both Japan-South Korea relations and Japan-U.S. relations could face some hiccups. However, we are no longer in the 2010s.

South Korea, too, is grappling with challenges similar to Japan’s — such as a shrinking and aging population, a sluggish economy and inflation. Additionally, it must face and deal with the potential challenges posed by a second Donald Trump administration. Given these circumstances, I would like to believe that public opinion in both Japan and South Korea has become much more mature and realistic in the 2020s.