It seemed that after the ousting of Yoon Suk Yeol from power, the situation in the Republic of Korea would begin to stabilize. However, events have taken an even more intriguing turn, including the impeachment of Prime Minister and Acting President Han Duck-soo.
Investigation into the Former President
Yoon appears determined to prove that his actions did not constitute rebellion. It is likely that we will see many arguments supporting his claims of a destructive stance taken by the parliament. Thus, even despite the political climate, the final decision may be more complex than it seems.
Adding to the complexity is the fact that there are currently only six sitting judges on the Constitutional Court. According to South Korean law, this number is sufficient to hold hearings and examine the case, but at least seven judges are required for a final vote.
Delaying the process serves a strategic purpose. Opposition leader Lee Jae-myung has already been convicted on one charge, with four more cases pending. If the Supreme Court confirms any of these convictions in the near future, Lee would lose his parliamentary seat and be barred from participating in politics for five years, even if the sentence is suspended. This would leave the Democratic Party without its autocratic leader and cause significant reputational damage, giving conservatives a stronger position in the fight for power.
Does Yoon Suk Yeol expect the Constitutional Court to overturn the parliament’s decision? If such a reversal occurs, Yoon could return to the presidency, though this would only escalate the confrontation to a new level.
Moreover, Yoon faces a separate charge of armed rebellion – one of only two constitutional provisions under which even a sitting president can be imprisoned. If witness testimony confirms that Yoon intended to dissolve parliament and prevent lawmakers from convening to repeal martial law, he could face a rebellion conviction even before the Constitutional Court reaches its decision.
As part of this investigation, prosecutors on December 27 charged former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun with organizing a rebellion, marking the first indictment related to the failed declaration of martial law on December 3. The investigation alleges that Kim advised Yoon to declare martial law and subsequently orchestrated the deployment of troops to the National Assembly and National Election Commission. According to Kim’s lawyers, he personally drafted all documents related to the martial law declaration, with Yoon making only minor edits to soften the language. Yoon, for instance, proposed omitting a curfew and insisted that citizens’ rights and freedoms should not be violated. Kim planned the raids on the Central Election Commission. He also reportedly believed that a criminal group was manipulating public opinion and falsifying election results in favor of Pyongyang, Beijing, and Moscow.
Rumors in the Background
As tensions escalate, Democrats and their allied media outlets have shared heart-wrenching yet peculiar details meant to portray the situation not as a spontaneous decision but as a premeditated conspiracy, allegedly involving conservatives willing to provoke an inter-Korean conflict.
Citing anonymous informants, Democrats claim that on December 3, military intelligence agents scattered around the world returned to Seoul with plans to bomb the city airport and the THAAD base to incite chaos and frame North Korea as the culprit. However, thanks to Parliament’s defense of freedom and democracy, these agents lost their leadership and accomplished nothing.
A separate stream of rumors revolves around the former head of the Defense Ministry’s Intelligence Command, Noh Sang-won. Despite being dismissed in 2018 for misconduct and subsequently working as a fortune-teller, Noh is now accused of meticulously planning the coup. Allegedly, on December 1 and 3, he met with the current head of military intelligence, Moon Sang-ho, and other senior officers at a burger joint near his home to plot the overthrow. Investigators reportedly discovered Noh’s notebook, which rivals Choi Soon-sil’s infamous tablet in terms of incriminating evidence. The notebook allegedly contains detailed plans outlining targets to seize, individuals to arrest, and a script intended for the media. This script purportedly describes a fabricated North Korean provocation near the disputed maritime border to justify the imposition of martial law.
Judicial Appointments and Another Impeachment
Since Democrats benefit from resolving the crisis swiftly, they proposed pushing their candidates for the vacant Constitutional Court positions through Parliament. Under this plan, Parliament would nominate three candidates (one potentially from the conservatives), which Acting President and Prime Minister Han Duck-soo would then confirm. Conservatives immediately recalled how Democrats opposed increasing the number of judges in 2016, only to be told this situation was “different”.
A more complicated issue arose because, while the acting president can approve judicial appointments, a prime minister cannot unilaterally do so. Thus, despite threats of impeachment, Han announced on December 26 that he would not appoint judges to the Constitutional Court until rival parties agreed on whether he had the authority to do so.
There is, however, a nuance: on December 22, Democrats demanded Han sign laws passed by Parliament authorizing special investigations into the president and the first lady within two days. Han vetoed the laws, performing an act that only the president, not the prime minister, could execute. Logically, this suggests he could appoint judges but chose not to.
Following this, Democrats wasted no time and, on December 27, 2024, held a vote to impeach Han.
Conservatives argued that impeaching an acting head of state required a two-thirds majority, as it would for a president. However, Speaker Woo Won-sik ruled that Han could be impeached as a prime minister, requiring only a simple majority. The conservatives boycotted the proceedings and left the chamber, but all 192 remaining lawmakers voted in favor. This led to yet another successful impeachment, which theoretically must also be reviewed by the Constitutional Court.
Now the Country Has Neither a President Nor a Prime Minister
Effectively, the state is currently being led by First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Choi Sang-mok, who is making every effort to steer clear of contentious political issues. However, with their parliamentary majority, the Democrats can impeach any government official as long as the new acting head of state refuses to “engage in dialogue and compromise”, which in Democratic terms translates to “fully agreeing to our terms”.
Author’s Commentary
We are witnessing a fascinating dimension of South Korea’s constitutional crisis. The constitution of the Sixth Republic includes numerous safeguards designed to prevent the usurpation of power by the president. These include a single term without re-election, the requirement for parliamentary approval of martial law, and various other mechanisms intended to ensure that figures like Park Chung-hee or Chun Doo-hwan never rise again. However, the constitution appears unprepared for the opposite scenario, in which the opposition, holding a parliamentary majority, completely obstructs the president’s and government’s agenda while using impeachment procedures to remove any undesirable official. Dissolving Parliament is not an option, making it extraordinarily difficult to resolve the crisis within the legal framework. This situation is no longer about a struggle for democracy but rather an attempt at a power grab by Lee Jae-myung and his clique.
As a result, three possible outcomes emerge: the Democrats might succeed in bending the state to their will to protect Chairman Lee from criminal prosecution; the reputational and economic damage caused by the ongoing chaos could persist indefinitely; or, as the Democrats increasingly overreach, forces considering themselves stabilizing powers might attempt to resolve the situation through non-parliamentary means, potentially acting with greater determination and severity than Yoon.
Given the current disarray within the security forces, the likelihood of such a coup remains low. However, action often provokes reaction, so unexpected twists in this unfolding drama cannot be ruled out.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, Leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies, Institute of China and Modern Asia, Russian Academy of Sciences
