Six hours under martial law in South Korea

South Korea recently declared and then lifted martial law for the first time in more than 40 years. What led to it — and what it tells us about the state of democracy in a key U.S. ally.

Ji Yeon Hong, associate professor of political science and Korea Foundation professor of Korean studies at the University of Michigan. Her research focuses on the political economy of authoritarianism, with particular attention to East Asia.

Chanyoung Ryu, a Seoul resident who was at the National Assembly compound on Tuesday night.

“David,” a Seoul resident who was at the National Assembly compound on Tuesday night.

John Kuk, assistant professor in the department of political science at Michigan State University.

Seungsook Moon, professor of sociology at Vassar College.

Gi-Wook Shin, professor of sociology and contemporary Korea at Stanford University.

Part I

MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI: The fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and the elimination of his dictatorial regime continues to draw the world’s focus. The complex situation there is in flux, as Syrian rebels have taken the capital Damascus. Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, leader of the main rebel group Hyat Tahrir al-Sham, claims that Assad’s removal is “a victory for the entire Islamic nation.”

HTS is a Sunni Islamist insurgent group that formed from an al Qaeda affiliate. In 2018 the United States designated HTS as a foreign terrorist organization. White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said today that “we’re going to work with all the groups in Syria … including the ones that have been designated as terrorist groups … [they] have actually said all the right things.”

So the situation in Syria is, of course, changing from hour to hour. No one knows when the dust will settle from the collapse of that brutal dictatorship.

For that reason, today, we’re going to step back and look, instead, to one of Asia’s most important democracies – and how last week, for six remarkable hours, that democracy looked as if it, too, could topple.

(KOREAN) I declare martial law to protect the Free Republic of Korea from the threat of North Korean communist forces, to eradicate the despicable pro North Korean anti state forces that are plundering the freedom and happiness of our people, and to protect the free constitutional order. (KOREAN)

CHAKRABARTI: On late Tuesday night, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol declared emergency martial law. He claimed it was to protect Koreans from supposed North Korean sympathizers, but many observers see a different story playing out. A deeply unpopular president, whose own party suffered a major defeat in Korea’s last election, and is under several corruption investigations, Yoon’s declaration of martial law included an attempt to ban political activities and bring the media under his control.

The news shocked the nation.

CHANYOUNG RYU: I never expected something like this to take happen in my life, and when I first heard it, I thought I wasn't aware of the definition correctly. So I looked it up, and I wasn't mistaken, so that was quite shocking.

CHAKRABARTI: Chanyoung Ryu lives in Seoul, South Korea. The 28-year-old was just finishing a long workday at home when he heard the news.

RYU: When I finished everything about 11:30, I thought about it. And the more I thought about it, I knew this wasn't right for the country. Although I'm not deeply involved in politics myself, I felt in my heart that I needed to go out. So I asked my parents, obviously, 'cause they'd be concerned. They obviously didn't want me to, but they said that this was the right thing. And so I got a taxi and went straight away.

CHAKRABARTI: Ryu arrived at the National Assembly compound around midnight.

RYU:  There was such a traffic jam that I decided to get out and just run a couple of hundred meters. First of all, there was police everywhere, guarding the National Assembly, not letting anyone in. And on the opposing side, there were lots of people all around the National Assembly protesting against the decision. (CROWD)

CHAKRABARTI: The police blockade included helicopters landing on the roof of the National Assembly to prevent Korean lawmakers from getting inside to overturn Yoon’s declaration.

Ryu was among the hundreds of Koreans who gathered to protest outside the National Assembly. “David” was also there. David says:

(KOREAN) There were military helicopters flying over the National Assembly compound. And because of the crowd by the main entrance, there were buses on the side of the road with martial law troops inside. Around 12:30, they got off the bus and tried to enter the compound.

CHAKRABARTI: We’re using a pseudonym for “David” because of concerns that his comments could have professional repercussions.

At first, it was all surreal, he says. To his left, there was a platoon-sized group of troops trying to enter the compound by hopping the fences. The crowd David was in confronted the troops.

(CHANTS/KOREAN)

“David” says he was worried, and although having the crowd next to him helped, he did feel a great deal of fear … because this wasn’t the first time he’s witnessed martial law enacted in South Korea.

The last time South Korea declared emergency martial law, David was in middle school – just over 40 years ago. A dark part of modern Korean history we’ll talk about later in the show.

Around 1 in the morning, 190 members of South Korea’s National Assembly took a vote to reject the martial law declaration. A few hours later, President Yoon officially lifted the emergency.

Although the reminder of South Korea’s authoritarian past was brief, “David” says it’s time for change. South Korea has a hard-fought democracy in place, David says.

(KOREAN) 'DAVID': “Even though this is the president that we voted for, I think it’s time for change in our country.”

CHAKRABARTI: The next day, Wednesday, opposition lawmakers submitted an impeachment bill.

On Thursday, Kim Yong-hyun, the former defense minister who proposed to Yoon that he should declare martial law, he told South Korean media outlet SBS that another purpose behind the martial law “was to assess the necessity of an investigation into alleged election fraud.”

That's revealed something else. Nearly 300 troops stormed the National Assembly compound that day, on the day of martial law. But later reporting found troops had also headed elsewhere on Tuesday … to the National Election Committee building. According to security camera footage retrieved by South Korean outlet MBC, there were troops taking images of election data servers.

The Korean National Election Committee confirmed that the troops didn’t remove any data from the building, but that has not allayed concerns.

JOHN KUK: I was surprised that there were still people who are in the cabinet and probably the president who still believes in this conspiracy theory. There will be a lot of people who will grow their support for the martial law decree because of this reemerging conspiracy theory.

CHAKRABARTI: So what is that conspiracy theory? John Kuk is an assistant professor in the department of political science at Michigan State University.

KUK:  In 2020, the conservative party politicians made some accusations about early voting being not too safe and there is a possibility of fraud.

CHAKRABARTI: To be clear, there has been no evidence subsequently found of systematic election fraud in the 2020 South Korean election.

Professor Kuk says the continued support for election conspiracy theories in Korea could further divide an already polarized nation.

KUK:  It's hard to address every accusation about elections. So if there are remaining doubts, these doubts will still linger among voters. And if President Yoon decides to cling to these doubts, then he can prolong his presidency or maintain some support while he's going through this impeachment battle.

CHAKRABARTI: Now, as for that impeachment battle. The impeachment vote failed to reach completion – because all but three members of Yoon’s Conservative People Power Party boycotted the vote, did not show up to the National Assembly, and thereby prevented the necessary two-thirds quorum of the 300-member body.

An estimated 150,000 protestors filled the streets outside the National Assembly this past Saturday, demanding Yoon’s impeachment … according to the South Korean news outlet Yonhap News.

On Sunday, the Seoul Prosecutors’ Office detained former Defense Minister Kim for his role in the martial law declaration. Today, the Ministry of Justice barred President Yoon from leaving South Korea, while officials investigate whether last week’s martial law amounted to leading an insurrection.

As the political unrest continues, Ryu, the 28-year-old Seoul resident, says he nevertheless remains hopeful about what will come next.

RYU:  We are in a state of political unrest and instability, and I think everyone agrees that the government isn't doing a great job at the moment. A lot of people are hoping for a change in just the overall political leadership.

I'm at the same page, but at the same time, I always have an optimism in my heart that the Korean people always made the right decision in the end, if you look at our history, and I think that we'll be able to do the same this time.

CHAKRABARTI: So, what are we to make about the threats to and defense of South Korea’s democracy?

Joining us now is Ji Yeon Hong. She’s an associate professor of political science and Korea Foundation professor of Korean studies at the University of Michigan. Professor Hong, welcome to On Point.

JI YEON HONG: Thanks for having me.

CHAKRABARTI: So we've got about a minute and a half before our first break here. I was wondering if you could just briefly bring us up to speed on what else has happened in Korea regarding President Yoon in the past couple of days.

HONG: So I think the summary has been really good in this show, but there are three bodies of investigation working right now. You mentioned about prosecutor's office, which office is where the president Yoon used to work before he became, he was elected as the president. So there is a lot of suspicion about, or distrust about prosecutor office, whether they will, they can be truly impartial for this investigation.

And there's National Office of Investigation, which is part of police department and also Corruption Investigation Office for high-ranking officials. They are also working on this case as well.

Part II

CHAKRABARTI: Professor Hong, this idea of political polarization is very familiar.

But I also described Korea as being politically divided. Can you describe in detail sort of what the vectors of those divisions are in Korea right now?

HONG: Korean polarized, in a way is similar to the United States, but there are different portions, in that its rarely about policy itself.

It's more about, it began from its ideological battle that exist in the country since the establishment of South Korea, I'd say. And in recent period, it became even more confrontational. So if you read the declaration of martial law by President Yoon at the time, it's full of ideological languages, mentioning of North Korea, North Korean sympathizers, and he called the entire legislature as National Assembly, as the den of criminals.

That shows the level of confrontation. And, in a way, demonization of the other side. I think in the United States, I see more of discussion about policy itself. In South Korea, it has been more about, there's more agreement about policy, actually. What should be done.

CHAKRABARTI: Yeah, so Professor Hong, again, at the risk of sounding rather gauche about my own understanding of Korean politics, which is admittedly not deep.

When you say the ideological differences dating back to the creation of South Korea, are you talking about the differences between those Koreans who are staunchly opposed to any talk of reunification versus those who may be more sympathetic? What is the ideological battle?

HONG: So it has transformed in different ways. But initially it was about whether South Korea should be, South and North Korea should be one Korea as one nation, versus and then how to make it. So whether it should be peaceful negotiation-based reunification, versus the value of free, liberal democracy is winning this battle between North and South Korea.

So the Conservative party, which is also authoritarian successor party, they have been always more confrontational about and then against the North Korean regime, and the Democratic party, which is more progressive side, has been more leaning toward peaceful negotiation between North and South.

CHAKRABARTI: Okay. So I don't want to minimize how important this ideological divide is, right? Because it harkens back to the very, first of all, the extraordinary pain and suffering that the entire Korean peninsula experienced during the Korean war. And then second of all, it gets to the heart of South Korean self-identification.

When you said that the Conservative party or the People Power Party is the successor party to the authoritarian one or authoritarian regime, tell me more about that.

HONG: The democratization of South Korea, which happened in 1987. It was initiated by massive protests by the public. But process of the democratization was more of sort of negotiation between the authoritarian regime at the time, and also the opposition side at the time.

And then the way it was democratized through the election was through the democratic election. And the authoritarian regimes, the ruling party at the time was one of the parties competed there, and then they won the first presidential election. And afterwards, they merged with other pro-democracy parties, and then transformed themselves as one of the most successful authoritarian successor party, or the party that has origins in authoritarian regime's ruling party.

CHAKRABARTI: But if I'm understanding you correctly, even though that's the genesis of Korea's Conservative party now, they are the ones who say that they are standing in defense of liberal democracy in South Korea.

HONG: So that has ideological meaning in it. So that liberal democracy is democracy against North Korea, democracy against possible socialist or communist change in the country. ... Which is old idea.

CHAKRABARTI: Wait, go ahead. Say more about that.

HONG: Which is, I think, in most of the countries this is very Cold War oriented languages, which will not be used in real politics anymore. But in South Korea, that's very much alive. Especially even in 2024.

CHAKRABARTI: Again, I'm saying this at a great distance sitting here in the United States, but that makes sense to me because, what, Seoul is 12 miles. Is that right? From the DMZ. So the reality of the difference in ideological beliefs in between South and North Korea is ever present.

HONG: That's true, too. That's the reality that South Koreans face every day, as well.

CHAKRABARTI: Given this backdrop then, what is the current balance of power in South Korean government?

HONG: So the presidential election was 2022, and that was the most close election in the history. The margin was less than 1%, 0.7%. So from the beginning, President Yoon's support was not the strongest one in history. And after the election, though, instead of expanding the support base, he chose to speak to or seek collaboration from very narrow, right wing or even far group of supporters, and his speech, compared to what he spoke during the election campaign, became even more ideologically driven afterwards.

So and then the personnel politics he played, he appointed a lot of very far or right-wing leaders in the country as the main cabinet members or in key positions in the government. So that led the support rate or the approval rate for him dropped drastically after his term began.

CHAKRABARTI: In South Korea is the president elected directly by the people or is it through --

HONG: Yes.

CHAKRABARTI: Okay, so people were actually casting their ballots either for or against him as president.

HONG: Yes, so there were another prominent candidate from the Democratic Party who won just 0.7% less votes than the president.

CHAKRABARTI: Interesting. I hate it when U.S. journalists pull everything back to trying to make it relevant via the lens of U.S. politics, Professor Hong, but I can't help it. Hearing you describe how President Yoon won by this tiny margin, but it sounds like he considered it something of a mandate and then became even more ideological extreme. Ideologically extreme, is what you're saying.

HONG: I think that sort of small margin make him and some of his supporters becoming, became more confrontational because their support is so narrow, and then you should do something about it, which makes them to behave in an extreme way.

I believe.

CHAKRABARTI: Yeah. So I'm saying that this sounds a little familiar given the current state of U.S. politics and where we are.

HONG: Unfortunately, yes.

CHAKRABARTI: So you don't disagree?

HONG: I don't disagree.

CHAKRABARTI: Okay. So then what led, there seems like there's many factors. We played that tape from President Yoon earlier saying, as you said, his decrying, this den of thieves that he saw, of support for North Korea, but there are other aspects that have been emerging about why he took this like extraordinary step of declaring martial law in Korea for the first time in 40 years.

What are some of those other factors?

HONG: The decisive moment I think is the legislative election, which happened in April this year. So because of his dropping popularity, and some of the political missteps that he took before the election, the Opposition Party, Democratic Party, won about 60% of the seats in the National Assembly, which gave them a lot of power to make the bill the Democratic Party wants, and also block the policies that the president wants to execute. And whatever bill made by the opposition party.

Basically, the president played veto power against the bill, that happened more than 20 times so far. So none of the political action could be taken for about seven months now. And then that was political confrontation, you can imagine, in the country.

CHAKRABARTI: It's interesting because I can't imagine it because the kind of gridlock that you're describing seems completely normal here in the United States, right?

Like divided government and given how U.S. politics has worked for the past couple of decades, divided government leading to a de facto paralysis, when it comes to actually advancing policy. I think we're just too immune to that in the United States, which is what's so interesting to me about what has happened in South Korea.

So this gridlock is one of the reasons that President Yoon said, instead of continuing to allow South Korea's democratic processes to work, I'm going to jump to declaring martial law. Now, how much of that had to do with some of the other things that we touched on earlier, that he's under investigation, under various corruption allegations?

Can you just quickly tell us what those allegations are?

HONG: So there is definitely him being, coming from out of, outside of politics. So he never practiced politics before. And coming from prosecutor's office, a lot of people describe him as him having very black and white view about the word, so it should be legal or illegal.

It should be right or wrong. So that makes him, and then his ideological leaning so far also made it hard to make any negotiation with the opposition party. And then made an awful unconstitutional choice. But at the same time, he personally, him and his family was under a lot of accusation and investigation.

And then the opposition party argue they could not, the publican could not trust the prosecutor's office. Because that's where he used to, the president used to work. And then prosecutor's office also dropped a lot of charges against his wife, who's also the center of the political scandal for corruption and bribery.

There are so many accusations against her, probably more than the president himself. And the prosecutor's office has been very inactive or not responsive so far.

CHAKRABARTI: I see.

HONG: So that led to even greater distrust about his politics.

CHAKRABARTI: Professor Hong, you're going to have to forgive me. Because, I don't know, maybe I'm just not a sophisticated enough political thinker to understand why he would have taken this massive jump to declaring martial law, because again, it just seemed like the next elections aren't that far away.

Why not turn to making a somewhat persuasive argument to the Korean people to break the gridlock between the president's office and the National Assembly?

HONG: I think that's part of the reason why all South Koreans are having a hard time and frustration. Why? What kind of psychology could lead him to this?

We are puzzled as much as you are. I think part of the reason is next election is actually quite far away, because the latest election was this year in April and legislative election is every four years. So next one will be in 2028, which is after. Korea has two major national election, which is presidential election every five years.

The last election was two and a half years ago. And legislative election is every four years. And then there is no reelection. This is, he's only in last term, and the National Assembly, the competition will be the same for the rest of his term, so if you try really hard to understand his psychology or desperation, as he described his status at the time. That might be the reason, but still, it cannot be the legitimate reason to understand.

CHAKRABARTI: I want to highlight one important thing, though, is that ultimately the rule of law prevailed last week in South Korea, right? The impeachment vote may not have been completed because of his party not showing up to prevent that quorum. But nevertheless, his martial law declaration was overturned, which had to involve members of his own party, as well.

And I'm just very taken by the images that we saw coming out of South Korea. Even legislators trying to get into the National Assembly and confronting troops. And saying, aren't you ashamed for being out here, for stopping the government from doing its work, and of the Korean people themselves who came to the National Assembly to protest.

Can you tell me a little bit more about what you saw in that spontaneous organization and support for Korean democracy?

HONG: Yes, absolutely. It's really, we all became tearful to see those citizens and public defending democracy with their body despite their facing, martial law military who are armed, heavily armed.

But at the same time, the lawmakers, despite their partisan conflict, they have had, feels like forever so far. They acted quickly together to revoke the martial law, very quickly. Within two and a half hours it was revoked, and then it could be even two hours, but they wanted to make it procedurally correct.

So the president cannot do anything about that. And then thirdly, the martial law itself was not well prepared, partly because the information couldn't be shared widely, so a lot of, and then the military system has been very professionalized during the 40 years, when South Korea did not have emergency martial law.

So at every step, I think there was lack of communication or miscommunication within the military. How, what they should do, how they behave. And the military members who were dispatched to the scene were also reluctant to act aggressively.

Part III

CHAKRABARTI: Now, what happened last week marked the first time that South Korea declared martial law in more than 40 years. The last time was 1980, to be exact, and Professor Hong, if you could listen along with me for a few moments because we really wanted to speak with people in detail about that history.

So we reached out to two political sociologists who were also students in South Korea in the 1980s.

Seungsook Moon at Vassar College and Gi-Wook Shin at Stanford University.

In the 1970s, South Korea’s democracy was experiencing quite the turmoil. In 1972, President Park Chung Hee established the Yushin Constitution, which turned the country into an autocratic dictatorship.

Professor Moon says that for a while, many South Koreans, particularly the older generation, supported Park’s dictatorial government.

SEUNGSOOK MOON:  So during the '70s, military tension with North Korea was really heightened. And then, globally, oil prices really gone up and it created real negative repercussions for Korean economy. After 1975, internal political situation also became so contentious. So a lot of people were very much fearful of what's going on.

Everyday Koreans who supported him saw all very positive things about him that, yeah, he's not democratic, he's brutal when it comes to political opposition, but, well, Korea is not quite ready for Western style liberal democracy. So we need this kind of strongman.

CHAKRABARTI: There was also a growing protest … especially among young college students, albeit quietly. And in 1979, after nearly two decades of Park Chung Hee’s presidency, the unexpected happened.

MOON: It was on October 26th of 1979. I heard from news that he was killed.

Growing up in 70s, we always thought that Park Chung Hee was the only person who can be the president. When Yushin Constitution was issued, Korea became formal dictatorship, meaning there was no election during the 1970s.

GI-WOOK SHIN: We didn't know what happened at the time, but later we learned that there are certain division within an inner circle of power regarding how to deal with growing protests. Chief of Korean CIA believed that the only way to solve the situation was to kill the president himself. Korean people were not used to this kind of power vacuum. And what they called the new military, led by Chun Doo-hwan, a two star general in charge of military intelligence, they actually moved very quickly to seize power through another coup.

By spring of 1980, social and political atmosphere was very intense. And I remember that campuses were full of protest. Riot police were dispatched to deal with protests and tear gas all the time. It's a really massive mobilization.

MOON: During that time, people call Seoul Spring, that all this political dictatorship was, in a way, melting away. And maybe now Korea has a chance to restore procedural democracy, and then revive election. Even as a high school student, I was aware of how all these things were really up in the air.

It was during about 10 days, from May 18th through 27th of May. Citizens of Gwangju City rose up against the military rule, especially in response to, in other words, the martial law and all this, you know, hardening of political situation again, and Chun Doo-hwan had to crack down all this movement to that is spreading around the country.

And he sent a special force to Gwangju city, the tanks and all, it was like a wartime operation, really, to crack down civilian uprising.

[ARCHIVAL TAPE OF PROTESTS IN GWANGJU]

SHIN: The new military, they wanted to send a strong message to Korean people, and I think Gwangju became a scapegoat. They got, uh, very severe repression. And then, you know, in the end, civilians fought against Korean troops. 

MOON: It was brutally crushed. And that was one of the most violent political history in South Korea.

SHIN: In the end, several hundred innocent people got killed. Many wounded. You know, this might be the first time or only time in Korean history that people got killed by their own military.

MOON: The people who were leading there, they say, was thousands. Government always quote much less number, so it's somewhere between. So that was the last time when Koreans experienced martial law.

SHIN: On Tuesday morning, I woke up around 6 a.m. And then I saw some, like, breaking news, saying martial law in South Korea. I thought you got a fake news. You gotta be kidding me. I mean, martial law in South Korea in 2024? There's no way.

MOON: I was totally shocked. I thought that there would be possibly two scenarios. One is that something really terribly threatening to the national security happened and I don't know about it. Or he's just doing this without much thinking and consultation, maybe in the context of all this political contention that has been going on and steadily growing. But I am actually very encouraged to see a lot of people taking streets.

SHIN: Koreans remember that they had to fight for democracy. If any undemocratic measures trying to threaten their society, they'll fight back. That's why I remain optimistic, despite all the problems with politics and politicians. That's my very strong conviction.

CHAKRABARTI: That was Gi-Wook Shin … He’s a professor of sociology and contemporary Korea at Stanford University. You also heard from Seungsook Moon … She’s a professor of sociology at Vassar College.

Professor Hong, listening to them really makes it that much more powerful that the scenes from South Korea, from Seoul in particular, last week included people confronting the military.

I had quoted a protester earlier saying, aren't you ashamed? Because it sounds like that's a direct reference to the tragedy of 1980. But just to be clear, even after 1980, though, Korea wasn't free of a military dictatorship, right?

HONG: So the new military regime by Chun Doo-hwan lasted seven more years.

And then toward the end of his regime, there was simply too big outcry from the public to reinstall the presidential election, direct presidential election, as he promised at the beginning of his regime. And that movement became really massive, the largest in scale in Korean history for democratization, and he had to make a concession.

CHAKRABARTI: Okay. So how much, though, does that period from 1980 through the '90s still inform, you heard the other two professors say this, but still inform South Koreans belief in the stability of their own democracy?

HONG: I think it's amazing. So at that time, I was told, I was like, just too young to remember anything myself, but I was told, people didn't know about Gwangju that well.

Because the information was very, there was no internet, and information was really kept within the insider. And it only, that's why the students who somehow got the information, had to go out to street and demand more transparency and democracy to the government, even though it was extremely brutal government at the time.

And then what's interesting about what just happened in 2024, it's not just old generation who remember that period, but also a lot of younger generation just sprung out to the streets and try to protect the democracy. Because this is already, Gwangju and also the previous period under dictatorship, is already in collective memory of South Korean citizens.

And then that has been through textbook news on truce and reconciliation process and documentaries and also movies, we talk, people talk about K culture and part of K culture is also very realistic depiction of what happened during Korean dictatorship.

CHAKRABARTI: The reason why I'm so compelled by understanding what happened in Korea last week is that, again, externally, many Americans look upon Korea as this glittering example of the potential of Asian democracy, right?

It's a technological powerhouse. It's a cultural powerhouse, as you talked about. Politically, the United States looks at South Korea as an absolute linchpin in the stability of the entire Asia, excuse me, Asia Pacific region, right? Korea, Japan, China, that sort of triumvirate being central to that whole hemisphere.

So I wonder if this reminder, that even in a nation like Korea, democracies can be fragile and must be protected. I wonder what you think that might make of, if last week's momentary blip might, if that might have any impact on U.S. Korea relations. If at all, given that we have a Trump administration coming in here in the United States in January.

HONG: So I think what happened in South Korea hasn't ended. So there is a continuing political turmoil going on. And there will be, the impeachment failed last week. And then the Democratic Party, the opposition party already announced that they will try it again next week on Saturday, and then there will be even greater protests outside the National Assembly building.

I think what Korean case shows is the hope and also limitation we see in political, democratic political system and institutions. National Assembly quickly prevent the country becoming another military dictatorship that was successful. But afterwards, how we can sustain democracy in South Korea has been a big question, because the ruling party doesn't want to let go of the current power they have, doesn't think about long term politics.

They should think right now, and blocking the impeachment process, which is the only constitutional process given by the constitution, since the democratization of the country. They're talking about other process like orderly resignation, which are not inside the constitution and so it's not sustainable.

It's not constitutional. So I think it's really important for politicians, especially the ruling party politician, think about democracy before partisan interest, and think about the stability of institution. The legislators, their mission is to check and balance the executive power. That's what founding fathers built the system of United States.

And then that will be really the last power they would have when this extreme situation happened.

CHAKRABARTI: Correct. That a democracy is only as strong as the people who believe in its institutions. Correct. Absolutely. Professor Hong, I wonder, we've got about a minute and a half left, if I could ask you to remove your professor hat for a moment, because I'm thinking to myself of how I felt on January 6th, 2021, right?

Watching the storming of the Congress of the United States. And American democracy did feel very endangered in that moment to me, ultimately was protected. I'll never forget that feeling though. And I'm just wondering, as a Korean, like how did what happened last week in Korea, when you were witnessing it.

What were you feeling and what were you thinking?

HONG: So I called my mom that morning without knowing the news. And she said something really bad happened to our country. I immediately thought North Korea attacked the country. That this natural, even like unconscious reaction Korea would, any Koreans would have.

None of us imagined this martial law mayhem was the reason. And I think January 6th to a lot of American citizens was a similar thing. I think I feel very frustrated, angry, and despite studying politics for decades, I honestly don't know what to do as an individual, but I think we have a lot of people in solidarity.

So there are a lot of citizens who are taking action because they have to do something right now. And then I'm part of it. And I will continue to make those actions to protect democracy.