South Korea’s Democratic Crisis

Amid global attention to South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol’s decree of martial law and subsequent impeachment, Aram Hur, Assistant Professor of Political Science and the Kim Koo-Korea Foundation Chair in Korean Studies, delves into the underlying pressures and narratives shaping the unfolding events.

Hur researches the intersection of nationalism and democracy, primarily in Asia.

“Nationalism has a bad rap as something that’s threatening to liberal democracy,” said Hur. “My work has tried to nuance that view and explore the conditions under which nationalism can also be a positive force to support democratic stability.”

As circumstances in Seoul unfolded, Hur assessed the situation for The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and The Hill. She was also invited as an expert panelist by The Korea Society in New York and Harvard University’s Ash Center. When several Fletcher students approached her after the martial law decree wanting to learn more, she convened a blitz session the very next day through the Fletcher Asia Forum, an academic program on contemporary Asia policy issues that she launched this fall.

Hur sat down with Fletcher for an interview on South Korean politics, polarization and lessons for the United States.

What were your first impressions as you watched this situation unfold?

When I saw the news, I had just arrived in my office and felt a sense of urgency. I was worried about overly simplistic narratives coming out. A lot of the media coverage has focused on the political failings of President Yoon's leadership, his inner circle and the circumstantial factors that led to this stunning martial law decree. Those factors are all important, but they can lead to the impression that leadership turnover will fix the problem. In my view, the crisis exposes deeper, systemic weaknesses in South Korea’s democracy that require institutional and social change.

You study nationalism and the creation of national stories and identity. How have such narratives in South Korea contributed to President Yoon’s impeachment?

The martial law decree in South Korea, while still shocking, isn’t entirely surprising when viewed through the country’s fractured nationalist history.

South Korea’s national identity is rooted in the idea of a singular and pure Korean bloodline, but its political elite have long been divided on how to best lead that nation. These divisions trace back to during Japanese colonial rule and were exacerbated during the Korean war – a civil war fought under the shadow of the Cold War. A northern faction embraced an ethnonationalist vision of self-reliance and freedom from foreign influence, while the southern faction aligned with the U.S., prioritizing modernization and integration into the liberal international order.

After the war ended in armistice, South Korea’s ruling southern faction persecuted northern loyalists and suspected communist sympathizers, branding them as national dissidents. This group later became the core of the opposition under the authoritarian regime, playing a key role in South Korea’s democracy movement. While some activists genuinely fought for liberal democratic values, others saw democracy as a means to reenter the political arena and impose their nationalist vision. This historical context highlights how deeply ingrained nationalist divides have shaped South Korea’s political landscape, making partisan polarization and vicious retribution cycles less surprising.

The Wall Street Journal article in which you’re quoted says that “the only country with stronger partisan conflicts than the U.S., according to Pew Research Center, is South Korea.” Do you have any thoughts about partisan conflicts in both countries as they relate to national and group identity?  

Debates about polarization often focus on intensity, but I think what matters more is the axis. When parties are polarized on a nationalist axis—on mutually exclusive nationalist visions—it poses unique dangers to democracy. Unlike class or race, nationalism ties directly to the idea of exclusive state ownership. A nation is a political community that sees itself as deserving of self-rule. When such nationalist goals are overlaid on political parties, it turns democratic competition into a struggle for state capture. Opposition parties are no longer seen as legitimate rivals, but rather as existential threats, undermining the mutual tolerance and forbearance essential to democratic stability. 

This kind of nationalist polarization has plagued South Korean democracy from the very start. It is also intensifying in the U.S., with both parties accusing the other side as “un-American.” So the lesson for Americans is not simply to celebrate the swift resistance of the South Korean people to impeach an ill-fit president, but to work to prevent the conditions that led to that in the first place.

Do you have any predictions, hopes or fears about the developing situation in Seoul?

I'm very hopeful for Korea at the citizen level. I was so moved by the crowd that has been protesting in defense of democracy. It is younger and more female than before. One silver lining from this chapter is that it viscerally showed this younger generation what it feels like to potentially lose democracy. And they showed up with a very clear message: democracy is non-negotiable.

I have many fears too, especially about the quality of political leadership and reforming the party recruitment process. But my strong hope is that this generation helps to drive a real reset for party politics in Korea and its democracy. I hope they push leaders to realize what is actually the best thing for South Korea, to put forth a radically new vision of what each party stands for and work to find a new vision of what it means to be South Korean today with an eye to the future, not burdened by the past.

Read more about Fletcher’s Comparative and Regional Studies field of study.