December 23, 2024
jakarta – Koreans are apparently some of the harshest people in the world towards their president.
Last week, lawmakers proposed removing President Yoon Seok-yeol from office after he declared a brief period of martial law on December 3.
His unexpected decision to suspend civilian rule was a high-stakes political gamble that stirred painful memories of the country’s authoritarian past, when human rights abuses and the suppression of democratic freedoms were widespread.
Yoon’s actions sparked fears of a return to that dark age, sparking an immediate public outcry and nationwide protests calling for his resignation.
If the Constitutional Court allows it, Yoon Eun-hye could become the second South Korean president to be impeached. Ironically, he was also instrumental in overthrowing Park Geun-hye, the first president to be impeached.
If found guilty of rebellion, Yoon could be sentenced to life in prison or even the death penalty, as South Korea’s legal system allows for such punishments in cases deemed to be serious threats to constitutional order and democratic governance.
The incident underscores an important lesson: the importance of standing firm against abuse of power.
We see that ordinary South Koreans and elected officials are more than willing to defend the country’s democratic institutions, even as security and military personnel are called upon to prevent them from overturning Yoon Eun-hye’s orders.
South Korea’s swift, coordinated action provides a model of resilience that other countries may follow.
Suddenly, the streets of Seoul became symbols of a vibrant democracy that refused to tolerate authoritarian tendencies.
Lawyer Yin Boonan described it as a moment of change that enhanced public awareness of democracy.
It may be cruel for one person to cause such a big backlash, but it is necessary.
The impeachment of President Park Geun-hye in 2017 is a complementary example.
She was ousted after revelations of unethical governance, and the Candlelight Revolution was a massive grassroots movement demanding justice.
These cases highlight how South Korea’s people and institutions have come together to hold leaders accountable.
Meanwhile, in Indonesia, accusations of executive overreach in the run-up to and during the February 2024 election, including former President Joko Widodo’s use of state institutions to undermine opposition candidates and argue for controversial The vice-presidential campaign was facilitated by accusations made by his son Gibran Raqqabumin al-Raqqa.
In fact, our political culture often allows leaders to avoid responsibility. This connivance creates a dangerous environment where corruption and misconduct are normalized.
President Prabowo Subianto recently proposed that corrupt individuals could be pardoned if they returned what they had stolen, but members of his government called it a “legal breakthrough” rather than sparking an outcry.
At the same time, activists say “the winter of Indonesian civil society is coming”. While significant, these movements lack the sustained impact needed to drive meaningful change.
Indonesia can learn from South Korea and focus on strengthening institutional safeguards and empowering citizens to demand transparency and accountability.
The role of youth and digital activism in the resilience of South Korean democracy provides valuable insights. K-pop fans, for example, have turned their cultural influence into advocacy platforms, demonstrating how popular culture intersects with political engagement.
They mobilize to raise awareness of social and political issues, often using their vast online networks to challenge narratives and hold the powerful to account.
In Indonesia, similar strategies can scale up reform efforts, using social media to unite disparate groups around common goals.
South Korea’s recent experience underscores the need to protect democratic institutions at all costs, showing how a vigilant public and swift institutional responses can resist abuses of power—a blueprint that Indonesia can adopt to defend its own democracy.
Responsibility is non-negotiable and there is no room for moral ambiguity in governance.
The lessons of South Korea remind us that democracy is not self-sustaining but requires the sustained efforts of citizens and institutions to flourish.
