Korea deserves better leadership . . . on both sides

The chaotic mess that followed Yoon Suk Yeol’s martial law folly is an embarrassment for Korean politicians who, unlike in 2016, failed to rise to the democratic challenge.

Democracy relies on a very delicate balance of power where the independence of justice remains one of the trickiest goals to achieve, and Korea is by no means an exception. Here, justice plays an even more important role since the balance tilts toward the legislative power in a unicameral system with a single-term limit for presidents.

Following an event as exceptional as a martial law declaration, democracy and justice must work flawlessly: History is watching.

In 2016, Korea experienced a rare moment of grace when, except for a minority of hardcore supporters, the whole nation united to demand and obtain the impeachment of then-President Park Geun-hye. Democracy triumphed and its very fundamentals were at the core of everyday discussions: what is justice, what is the separation of powers, what are checks and balances … This unity was also made possible because, from the beginning, the Ewha Womans University students who started the mobilization around the Park scandal demanded that the movement remained apolitical.

The democratic surge against Yoon’s martial law did start on a bipartisan basis (the move was immediately denounced by leaders from both sides, and swiftly canceled in a unanimous vote), but partisan politics quickly took over.

Yoon’s disastrous move logically resulted in his impeachment, but instead of following the natural process led by the Constitutional Court, the opposition launched parallel investigations to speed up the calendar. Because Yoon was not the only target of justice, and from Dec. 3 the key question has never been whether he will be removed from power (he should and he will), nor even when (in any case by mid-May, or six months after his impeachment), but whether Lee Jae-myung will pull a Trump and elude justice until the presidential elections, which must be held within 60 days following the president’s removal.

Substituting the calendar of justice with the calendar of politics is dangerous for democracy, and when you try to score political goals at all costs, you end up scoring own goals in front of history. As the Republican Party just demonstrated in the U.S., you can at the same time win an election and lose your soul. And just like Lincoln would hardly recognize Trump’s GOP, Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun would not necessarily condone this Democratic Party of Korea’s (DPK) handling of justice.

Make no mistake, as president, Yoon himself displayed a very selective vision of justice. And of course, his People Power Party is far closer to Trump’s, particularly with its own "basket of deplorables" (from anti-feminists to ultra-conservative bigots, K-MAGA conspiracy theorists and hardcore history revisionists … ). But it takes two to tango, and there are good and bad guys on both sides of the aisle.

The DPK’s first miscalculation was the express and frankly unnecessary impeachment of then-acting President Han Duck-soo. This manufactured crisis confirmed that party leaders were in a rush and didn’t care about the economic or international consequences of their actions.

But weaponizing the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) was clearly a moral hazard. Yes, it undoubtedly helped the party achieve its goal of speeding up the judiciary calendar and serving Lee, but at what cost?

With its spectacular strikes, borderline legal tactics and at times comical blunders (not to mention unanswered questions regarding its scope and legitimacy), the CIO drew criticism from both sides and replaced the due process of justice with a tragic circus that not only contaminated a Constitutional Court forced to take sides or to turn a blind eye, but also cast serious doubts about the impartiality of the whole system.

Worse: The CIO’s shortcomings also revived the key controversies that surrounded its creation five years earlier. At the core of justice reforms that disrupted the balance of power and brought confusion between justice and police, undermining the core missions of the latter, the new institution appeared like a special purpose vehicle, a partisan tool tailor-made to "search and kill" any investigation against former President Moon Jae-in’s administration and friends.

So using and abusing this very CIO against Yoon, a liberal darling who before falling down his own rabbit hole became the right wing’s champion precisely because he resisted these controversial reforms as well as abuses reminiscent of the despicable prosecutor Woo Byung-woo ... that's not the smartest message to send if you want to restore trust in the system.

Furthermore, this messy, undignified rush is deliberately depriving Korea of a most vital democratic debate on the core issues raised by Yoon’s folly, in particular the accusations of abuse of power made not only against him, but also against the legislative majority. This general lack of transparency, this confusion, fed feelings of frustration and unfairness, logically contributing to the rise of the disgraced president and his party in opinion polls when Yoon should have remained at rock bottom, like Park before him. As much as wild right-wing conspiracy theories, this certainly fueled Korea’s own Jan. 6 moment (the inexcusable yet fully predictable and preventable Jan. 19 assault on the court that issued Yoon’s arrest warrant).

Between Yoon’s suicidal martial law declaration and the opposition’s counterproductive barrage, Korean politicians from both sides only managed to demonstrate their lack of judgment and their unfitness to lead the nation toward actual justice, fairness and unity.

The failed reforms of 2020 must be fixed, checks and balances restored, and new, moderate leadership must emerge on both sides. If now is certainly not the best time to allow a second term for presidents, implementing a two-round system for the next presidential elections would be the best way to let all voices be heard in the first round, to help more transparent alliances form before the second and to erect an additional hurdle against populism.

Stephane Mot is author of “Seoul Villages - Guisin-dong and other Seoul Villages."