South Korea Removes its President Democratically — but Bigger Crises Loom
Anti-Yoon protestors cheering for his removal (Photo: Getty Images)
On April 8, South Korea announced a snap presidential election scheduled for June 3rd, following the removal of President Yoon Suk-yeol from office. The Korean Supreme Court ruled that Yoon’s declaration of martial law was unconstitutional, opening the door for a potential jail sentence.
The crisis began as Yoon struggled with legislative gridlock and accused the opposition of weaponizing the budget process. The National Assembly, dominated by the opposition liberal Democratic Party (DP), enacted significant budget cuts — an unusual move in a system where the executive branch traditionally controls fiscal decisions with only limited legislative revision. Amid escalating tensions and an absence of meaningful dialogue, Yoon declared martial law and deployed the military. This decision shocked the public and legislature, evoking painful memories of pre-democratic coups, and led to impeachment proceedings.
South Korea’s political divide has grown increasingly entrenched as the two major parties (liberal Democratic Party and conservative People Power Party) often capitalize on scandals as a tool of political attack and have developed voter bases with unwavering loyalty who see the opposition as an enemy. In this polarized environment, presidential candidates are often selected for their combative stance rather than policy vision or qualifications. Yoon himself, with no prior political experience, rose to power after clashing with former President Moon Jae-in during his tenure as prosecutor-general. Once in office, Yoon showed little interest in working with the opposition and repeatedly addressed the opposition leader as a “criminal suspect.”
This polarization came to a head during the parliamentary elections held in April 2024, where Yoon’s party secured only 108 of 300 seats, while the DP claimed a commanding 175-seat majority. Yoon’s refusal to engage constructively with the legislature, even amid crisis, left his administration isolated. The standoff between the executive and legislature in a divided government, warned by scholar Juan Linz as “the perils of the presidential system,” reached a breaking point with Yoon’s authoritarian move to declare martial law — ultimately leading to his downfall.
Amid the political impasse, pressing domestic issues remain unresolved. Most notably, a trainee doctors’ strike continued for 13 months with no solution in sight, following a government proposal to expand annual medical school enrollments from 3,000 to 5,000. The government argued the expansion was necessary to address physician shortages, particularly in rural areas and among aging populations. However, doctors criticised the plan as rushed and poorly consulted, warning it would dilute the quality of medical education and overburden existing institutions. The strike has paralysed hospital operations across the country, deepening public anxiety over access to healthcare. Despite the urgency, South Korea’s Education Ministry only offered a solution last month to freeze the number of new medical students at about 3,000 a year.
Broader structural challenges — such as an aging population, low birth rates, and youth unemployment — have also stalled in the absence of effective governance. South Korea's birth rate remains the lowest in the world, and projections warn of a steep population decline that could strain pension systems, reduce economic productivity, and upend long-term planning. Meanwhile, a growing number of young people face job insecurity and limited upward mobility, fuelling frustration and political disengagement. Without a functioning government able to pass targeted legislation, these long-term issues are likely to worsen.
Yoon had promised sweeping reforms aimed at revitalizing the Korean economy by weakening the influence of labor unions, cracking down on corruption, and reducing state intervention in business. His administration sought to attract foreign investment and boost industrial competitiveness, positioning itself as pro-business and market-friendly. However, critics argued that these reforms disproportionately favored conglomerates (also known as chaebols) and failed to address economic inequality. Now, with Yoon’s removal and a hostile legislature, these proposals are unlikely to move forward. The political vacuum has also created uncertainty for investors and left key regulatory reforms in limbo.
Gender politics further complicated Yoon’s presidency. His controversial claim that “structural discrimination against women no longer exists” and his proposal to abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family alienated many women voters. Yoon framed the abolition as part of a broader effort to promote meritocracy and efficiency in government, but many saw it as a dog-whistle to male voters frustrated with gender equity policies. While these views won support from young men — many of whom perceive themselves as disadvantaged by current gender policies — they sparked backlash from women’s rights advocates, who warned that the president and his party were undoing years of hard-won progress.
As the country prepares for a new election, the next president will inherit a fractured political landscape and a long list of unresolved issues. Whoever wins will face the daunting task of repairing institutional trust and restoring political functionality. To move forward, any incoming administration will need to bridge partisan divides and rebuild public confidence in South Korea’s democratic institutions. According to recent polls, the Democratic Party’s candidate Lee Jae-myung currently holds a slight lead, but independents and smaller parties are gaining traction amid widespread voter disillusionment with both major parties.