At 11pm on 3 December President Yoon Suk Yeol of the Republic of Korea (ROK – South Korea) made a public broadcast in which he accused his political opponents of “anti-state activities,” “collaboration with North Korean Communists” and of trying to overthrow the country’s “liberal democracy” by creating a “legislative dictatorship”. Army Chief of Staff, Park An-su, announced that “All political activities … rallies and protests are banned.” The decree put all media under the control of military authorities and ordered trainee doctors, who had previously resigned en masse, to return to work within 48 hours and banned strikes.
Detention orders were issued for a number of Yoon’s opponents including the leader of the opposition Democratic Party (DKP), Lee Jae-myung, but also the leader of his own conservative People Power Party (PPP) Han Dong-hoon, and, according to some reports, the leader of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), Yang Kyung-soo.
The KCTU played a central role in opposing this attempted coup. In an emergency meeting the KCTU leadership called on its members to begin an indefinite general strike until Yoon was removed from office. The memory of the repression and brutality of authoritarian rule and the enormous sacrifices made by the working class to finally end it in 1987 is alive and kicking in the movement. The threat that the power of the organised working class would once again be mobilised to overturn Yoon’s coup and defend democratic rights was central to the coup’s rapid collapse. While this cut across the call for an indefinite general strike, key groups of workers, such as metal and railway workers, had already taken strike action in a bold signal of workers’ resolve. The militant Korean labour movement has a chance to put its stamp on future events, intervening in the deepening political crisis of the ruling class and Korean capitalism.
Coup Collapses
The National Assembly was not in session at the time of Yoon’s broadcast and police officers blocked entrances to the building in an attempt to stop MPs from voting on the declaration. However, in social media posts read by millions, opposition leaders called for people to assemble outside the National Assembly building to oppose the bill. Most broadcasters also ignored the decree and continued to cover the popular mobilisation that developed. As Assembly members arrived protesters confronted police and members of the army’s special services and helped them climb over fences into the building.
Eventually, enough Assembly members were able to make it to the National Assembly to hold a vote, including those from Yoon’s party, voted unanimously to lift the martial law. Six-hours after the declaration, Yoon had conceded defeat and lifted martial law himself.
Most of the coverage in the Western press has treated this attempted coup and its aftermath as merely an aberration in the ROK’s development as a bastion of liberal democracy in Asia – it was the result of a politically incompetent and unpopular president frustrated by his inability to pass his budget and important policies through an opposition-dominated National Assembly and who moved against it to prevent it from launching an investigation into his wife for corruption. According to this narrative, the defeat of the coup shows the resilience of South Korean ‘democracy’. One Singaporean television news channel even declared, “Capitalism is the unsung hero of South Korean democracy”. This account bears little relation to reality. Other accounts mention the political polarisation between the ruling and opposition parties, both of which are firmly committed to capitalism, drawing superficial comparisons with US politics but ignoring important differences. What lies behind Yoon’s coup attempt and what is likely to happen from now?
A vibrant Asian democracy?
While South Korea is today an advanced capitalist country it is hardly a typical one. Formerly a Japanese colony, after Japan’s defeat in World War II, Korea was plunged into war between 1950 and 1953. The Korean War was the first major conflict of the Cold War between the imperialist powers and the Stalinist Soviet Union. Out of the Korean War a regime modelled on Stalin’s Russia emerged in the North and an impoverished and autocratic capitalist state emerged in the South. Democracy had to be fought for by mass popular movements that faced brutal repression from right-wing US-backed regimes. As industry developed from the 1970s onwards the labour movement and independent trade unions played a major role in the struggle for democratic rights. The building of democratic unions, independent of management and the state, was a major victory for workers in the struggle for democracy, but on this they were opposed by the capitalists at every step.
While Yoon’s coup may have been the first open coup attempt for nearly forty years, today’s South Korean state still carries the imprint of its autocratic past. When former president Park Geun-hye, the daughter of former dictator Park Chung-hee, was faced with impeachment in 2017 a document surfaced revealing that sections of the military had made plans to suppress anti-Park protests. The incident was investigated by the Moon government that replaced her, but the idea was ridiculed by many. Associated Press spoke to a group of “military experts” and concluded that a coup was impossible in twenty-first century South Korea.
The National Security Act introduced in 1948, just prior to the Korean War, is still on the books and it allows for up to seven years imprisonment for anyone “who praises, incites or propagates the activities of an anti-government organization”. In 2013 the Constitutional Court dissolved the United Progressive Party, a broad vaguely leftist party that had won 13 out of 300 seats in the National Assembly on the grounds of allegedly “pro-North Korean views”. Amnesty International stated at the time that this raised “serious questions as to the authorities’ commitment to freedom of expression and association”. Although prosecutions have become less common in the recent past, as with Yoon’s attempted coup, allegations of being pro-North Korean are still used to justify authoritarian measures against those on the left who have no connection to North Korea. Leaders of the militant KFTU have repeatedly been arrested on various spurious charges under both “liberal” and “conservative” governments.
Political Polarisation
Observers have pointed to the political polarisation between Yoon’s misnamed People Power Party and the opposition Democratic Party. While the Democratic Party has its origins in the democracy movement that over-turned military rule in the 1980s, it is a pro-capitalist, broad-tent party that includes people who would be labelled ‘centre-left’ to ‘centre-right’ in most countries. Because of repression, which has made organising left-wing parties difficult, and a voting system rigged against them, much of the Korean left, including trade union leaders, have tended to support this party as the “lesser evil”. Invariably though DKP governments have not kept their promises and betrayed the labour movement.
Yoon was originally appointed as the Public Prosecutor for Seoul Central district by former-DKP president Moon Jae-in, and had played a role in prosecuting former presidents such as Park Geun-hye and a number of former officials and business executives. The relationship turned sour when he attempted to prosecute a number of DKP representatives.
Yoon subsequently joined the conservative PPP and narrowly won the party’s primaries to become its presidential candidate on a program of unregulated free-market capitalism. He opposed the 52-hour maximum work-week introduced by former president Moon and instead proposed a 120 hour maximum! After he won the subsequent presidential election he attempted to raise the legal maximum from 52 to 69 hours, but was forced to retreat under pressure from the popular movement. He also spoke in favour of deregulating food safety standards, arguing that “poor people should be allowed to eat substandard food for lower prices”. He followed up by blaming feminists for Korea’s declining birth-rate and denying that there had been any leakage of radiation in Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster.
Foreign Policy
The immediate trigger for Yoon’s coup was probably the investigation of Yoon’s wife for corruption. However, there is evidence that the coup was planned up to six months before. Beyond the “personal factors” that divide the capitalist political parties there were more substantial differences within the South Korean elites. The attempted coup exposed very real policy divisions within the ruling class.
The rise of China as a major power and the war in the Ukraine have led to changes in foreign policy. Korea lies on one of the fault lines of what the IMF has called the world’s “shifting geopolitical tectonic plates”. Despite the fact that South Korea is firmly integrated into the system of US alliances, with over 27,000 US troops stationed on its territory, its elites have adopted a basically pragmatic foreign policy. This includes pursuing the eventual reunification of the Korean Peninsula which necessitates engagement with both China and Russia. The South Korean economy benefited enormously from trade with China between 2003 and 2023, becoming its largest trading partner. It is only in the last two years, with the rise in trade frictions between the US and China, that the relationship has soured and South Korea has adopted a policy of ‘de-risking’ and looking to alternative export markets and investment opportunities in South-East Asia.
Ironically for the man who just launched a military coup attempting to suspend democratic rights and detain political rivals, Yoon adopted a policy called “values diplomacy”. It emphasised building stronger relationships with countries which “shared common values” with the Republic of Korea. Yoon used the word “freedom” some thirty-five times in his inaugural address. Despite much talk about a “rules-governed international order”, what it means in reality is a much harder line in relationships with North Korea and China, and a closer relationship with the US, and, most problematically for Yoon, with Japan.
The South Korean ruling class has historically cloaked themselves with an anti-Japanese nationalism in an attempt to cut across class divisions. As the former colonial power there are many historical and other disputes between South Korea and Japan, including the issue of wartime military sexual slavery, compensation for forced labour by Koreans and others, as well as the territorial issue of the disputed Dokdo / Takeshima islets and their surrounding rocks lying between Japan and the ROK.
While socialists are internationalists and stand for the closest possible unity of Korean and Japanese workers they are not indifferent to the grievances of those who suffered under colonial rule. The Japanese military regime that committed crimes in Korea and other Japanese colonies was also the enemy of the Japanese labour movement. Yoon’s policies have coincided with the Biden administration’s promotion of alliances aimed at countering China and so were greeted enthusiastically. This led to the trilateral joint statement of the three countries in November 2024 sharply critical of North Korea, China and Russia.
For Yoon the desire for a closer alliance with Japan has meant re-writing Korean history. He promoted controversial figures from the Korean ‘New Right’ which argues that the Japanese occupation was a positive factor in the modernisation of Korea. Controversially, in 2024 he appointed New Right figures as the director and chair of the Independence Hall of Korea sparking protests from the Korean Liberation Association (an organisation that commemorates Korean independence) and others. His “solution” to the forced labour issue, where Japanese companies had been ordered by Korean courts to compensate the victims involved with Korean companies paying the compensation instead, provoking outrage and criticism from wide layers of the population.
An indication of the importance of the question of relations with Japan was that the impeachment resolution drawn up by the DKP and put to the assembly on Saturday contained the following paragraph: “In addition, under the guise of so-called ‘value diplomacy’, Yoon has neglected geopolitical balance, antagonizing North Korea, China, and Russia, adhering to a bizarre Japan-centred foreign policy, and appointing pro-Japan individuals to key government positions, thereby causing isolation in north-east Asia and triggering a crisis of war, abandoning his duty to protect national security and the people.”
The war in Ukraine has produced further problems for Yoon’s foreign policy. The war has taken on elements of a proxy war between North and South. The North has attempted to break its isolation by building stronger links with both Russia and China and has sent troops to fight on the Russian side. The ROK, which has one of the most developed armaments industry in the world, has provided some assistance to Ukraine supplying them with body armour and medical supplies but has so far resisted requests from the Ukrainian Zelensky-regime for the supply of artillery and air defence systems. Yoon has refused to rule out the supply of these weapons, making it dependent on what North Korea and the Russian do from now. He has been under strong pressure from popular opinion at home not to do so. A recent opinion poll showed 82% of the public were opposed to supplying Ukraine with arms. This is not due to any sympathy for the Putin-regime, but a fear it would retaliate by supplying the North with weapons and technologies, including those related to its nuclear program.
Where to now?
The drama unfolding in the ROK over the last week has definitely not reached a conclusion. While Yoon has rescinded the declaration of martial law, he is still in power. Despite massive popular pressure an opinion poll showed 72% supported impeachment. On Saturday 7 December the ruling-PPP boycotted Saturday’s impeachment vote, leaving the assembly inquorate. Anger was expressed by protesters outside the National Assembly, which organisers claimed was over a million strong (typically the police put the figure at 150,000).
Kim Min-seok, a Democratic Party MP, who was ridiculed when he pointed out in August that Yoon was preparing for a coup, stated in an interview with the liberal Hankyoreh newspaper: “The president’s declaration [or martial law] was valid for all of two or three hours. But this is likely only the first wave. The embers are still glowing.” While a second coup attempt is not the most likely development it cannot be ruled out. The opposition are correct in arguing that Yoon must go immediately.
The PPP fears the impeachment of Yoon because the presidential elections that would then need to be held within sixty days would likely mean a disastrous result for them. The party is likely trying to delay any election until after DKP leader Lee Jae-myung’s appeal against a corruption conviction, and who is also the DKP’s likely presidential candidate. PPP party leader Han Dong-hoon has talked about an “orderly resignation”. But as someone who was targeted for detention in the coup, he is playing a dangerous game. He has claimed that Yoon has had his powers over the army removed and that he and the Prime Minister are in control. But few trust the promises that Yoon has made to Han, that he will resign at a time of the party’s choosing.
The opposition have correctly pointed out that there is no legal basis for what is basically an extra-legal seizure of power by the ruling party and have promised to submit further impeachment resolutions this week. They have also stated opposition to other possible ways of removing Yoon, for example by a bill to shorten his term in office.
The capitalist class, both in South Korea and internationally fear, that Yoon and the ruling party’s attempt to cling to power will lead to a deepening of the movement and its radicalisation. A report published by Eurasia Group on 8 December warned that in addition to swelling demonstrations “strikes and more violent forms of dissent” are likely. The popular movement is unlikely to subside and disappointment can rapidly turn to anger.
In its latest statement the KCTU calls for the dissolution of the ruling PPP party. However who is going to enforce this, the Constitutional Court? How is this going to be accomplished? The KCTU has called on its members to participate in the candle-light demonstrations for the ouster of Yoon. The working class needs to rely on its own forces. The labour movement can’t put its trust in the opposition leaders either. In the present situation unions should take the initiative in building popular committees based on workplaces, but drawing in residents and citizens groups, to give direction to the movement, to ensure Yoon’s removal and begin building a genuinely socialist alternative – not the totalitarian caricature in the North – to the pro-capitalist political parties whose defence of the profit-system makes them incapable of consistently defending democratic rights, whatever positions they may have taken on Yoon’s attempted coup.
By taking the initiative and the lead in the struggle to defend democratic rights the KCTU could lay the basis for the creation of a genuine mass party of the Korean working class. That would need the broadening out of the struggle, and the raising of additional demands, which could include the abolition of the National Security Act and all undemocratic aspects of the present ROK constitution. Far from capitalism being “the unsung hero of South Korean democracy,” democratic rights can only be secured in Korea by the organised working class placing itself at the head of the mass movement and making a decisive break with capitalism and the power of the capitalist conglomerates that dominate the ROK’s economy.
