South Korean lawmakers have narrowly failed to impeach President Yoon Suk Yeol following his controversial attempt to declare martial law earlier this week. The impeachment motion fell three votes short of the required 200 in the National Assembly, with most members of the ruling People Power Party (PPP) abstaining from the vote.
The political turmoil began on Tuesday when President Yoon declared martial law, a move deeply associated with the country’s authoritarian past, in what he described as an effort to resolve a political deadlock. The announcement, which sparked widespread protests and condemnation, was swiftly overturned by parliament and rescinded by his administration hours later.
The impeachment motion required a two-thirds majority to pass, meaning at least eight PPP members had to support it. However, only three ruling party lawmakers stayed in the chamber during the vote on Saturday, while the rest boycotted. Among those present, Cho Kyung-tae cited Yoon’s Saturday morning apology and promise to step down early as influencing his decision not to back impeachment.
In his remarks, Cho criticized Yoon’s declaration of martial law as "irrational and absurd" but expressed concern that impeachment would shift power to Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) leader Lee Jae-myung. Cho further alleged that Yoon’s controversial move had overshadowed what he described as the DPK’s "radical governance" during their tenure.
Following the vote, opposition leader Lee Jae-myung vowed to continue pushing for Yoon’s impeachment, calling him "the greatest threat" to South Korea’s democracy. Speaking to a crowd outside the National Assembly, Lee pledged to restore political stability by year-end, hinting at further political maneuvering in the weeks ahead.
Martial law, a form of military rule that restricts civil liberties, had not been declared in South Korea since before its transition to parliamentary democracy in 1987. Yoon justified the drastic measure as necessary to combat "anti-state forces," pointing to tensions with North Korea. Critics, however, viewed it as a disproportionate response to a gridlocked parliament, where Yoon’s administration had been reduced to vetoing bills passed by the opposition-controlled legislature.
The president’s surprise announcement on Tuesday night caused chaos at the National Assembly. Protesters flooded the streets as military personnel attempted to block access to the building. Lawmakers clashed with soldiers before 190 MPs managed to enter and vote to overturn the martial law decree. Hours later, Yoon’s cabinet formally revoked the declaration.
Despite its short duration, the martial law incident has sparked ongoing protests, with demonstrators largely condemning the president’s actions. Although some small groups expressed support for Yoon, they were overshadowed by larger crowds demanding accountability.
Details about Tuesday’s events have since emerged, adding to the controversy. The military commander responsible for enforcing martial law revealed he had learned about the decree through the media and had refused to order his troops to detain lawmakers or issue live ammunition. Additionally, South Korea’s National Intelligence Service confirmed reports that Yoon had sought to arrest both political rivals and allies, including PPP leader Han Dong-hoon.
These revelations prompted a small number of ruling party lawmakers to consider supporting impeachment. Yoon’s apology on Saturday appeared to be a final effort to prevent further defections. While he admitted the martial law declaration was a desperate move, he stopped short of offering his resignation, instead delegating decisions on political stability to his party.
Impeaching a South Korean president is not without precedent. In 2016, former President Park Geun-hye was impeached over a corruption scandal, with her removal finalized by a constitutional court. If Yoon faces another impeachment attempt, it would similarly require both a parliamentary majority and confirmation by the constitutional court, where two-thirds of judges would need to uphold the motion for it to take effect.
Post a Comment