By John Q. Hosedrinker 
South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol’s attempted coup, undertaken due to political gridlock and unpopularity, was swiftly thwarted by mass protests and a unanimous National Assembly vote. His actions, including the declaration of martial law and deployment of troops, revealed his authoritarian tendencies and undermined his already low approval ratings. The incident highlights the increasingly autocratic nature of Yoon’s presidency, contradicting the image of a democratic leader promoted by the U.S. in its strategy to counter China. Ultimately, the South Korean people prevented not only a domestic power grab but also potentially averted a dangerous escalation of regional tensions.
Read the original article here
South Korean protesters thwarted more than just a coup attempt; they prevented a potential slide towards authoritarianism and potentially averted a significant escalation in tensions with China. The sheer speed and effectiveness of their response were astonishing. The protesters’ actions weren’t just about stopping a power grab; they demonstrated a remarkable societal resilience and a deep commitment to democratic principles.
The initial reaction to the president’s actions seemed to indicate a calculated gamble on the military and police supporting him. This gamble failed spectacularly. While images circulated of protesters using fire extinguishers against military personnel, the fact that the military didn’t forcefully intervene suggests a more profound lack of support for the president’s actions than a simple inability to overcome civilian resistance. The military’s reluctance to engage in violence against their fellow citizens was a crucial factor in the success of the protests.
The narrative of avoiding a cold war with China is complex. While South Korea and China have had a tense relationship for years, including economic friction surrounding issues like the THAAD missile defense system, the president’s actions risked a sharp escalation. His hardline stance on North Korea, favored by the US, had already created tension. His attempted power grab could have been perceived as an aggressive move that further destabilized the region and deepened the existing rift with China. The swift rejection of the coup attempt likely lessened the chance of such an escalation.
The comparison to the 2014 Crimean crisis is apt, highlighting a similar attempt at a swift, paralyzing takeover. However, the South Korean response differed drastically. The protesters’ swift and decisive action stands in stark contrast to the relative passivity witnessed in some other instances of attempted democratic erosion. The speed and organization of the protest suggest a deeply ingrained understanding of the importance of defending democratic institutions, possibly shaped by South Korea’s relatively recent history with authoritarian rule.
The event underscored a stark contrast between South Korea and the United States. The unanimous parliamentary vote against martial law, a feat unimaginable in the current US political climate, highlights the deep divisions and lack of unified action within the American political system. The South Korean parliament’s response demonstrated a remarkable level of unity and resolve, effectively cutting off the president’s attempt at a coup.
The immense outpouring of support for the protesters is also noteworthy. The president’s low approval rating, coupled with the concentration of opposition in Seoul, meant a significant portion of the population was ready to oppose him. The willingness of ordinary citizens to actively defend the National Assembly, even physically barricading it, illustrates a civic engagement rarely seen in similar situations elsewhere. The widespread participation was instrumental in the success of the protests, indicating that a sizable portion of the population was keenly aware of the stakes. This contrasts with potential scenarios in other countries where apathy or fear might have hindered such a massive and effective response.
Another critical factor was the speed of the response. The entire event unfolded with remarkable rapidity, from the declaration of martial law to its unanimous rejection and the president’s subsequent retreat. This efficiency highlights the high level of civic awareness and organizational capacity within South Korean society, along with the quick reaction of the Korean military and police force, who did not engage in support of the President. This efficiency left little room for the president’s attempted coup to take hold.
Furthermore, the mandatory military service in South Korea plays a role. While it can be seen as a tool of potential oppression, it also inadvertently equips a significant portion of the population with the skills and experience to act effectively during a crisis. The widespread knowledge of military procedures and organization likely contributed to the protesters’ capacity to quickly respond and effectively counter the president’s actions. The fact that the military itself seemed unwilling to enforce martial law was equally pivotal.
The South Korean experience offers a valuable lesson: a functioning democracy requires not only strong institutions but also a vigilant and engaged citizenry willing to actively defend its freedoms. The swift, decisive, and overwhelmingly successful response of the South Korean people to the attempted coup serves as a powerful example of how a society can safeguard democracy against threats from within. The event also highlights the fragility of democratic institutions and the crucial role of an active and informed citizenry.