South Korea as America’s Mirror
South Korea, in many ways, mirrors the United States. The nation’s first president, Syngman Rhee modeled his country after the United States, founding it on liberal democracy, free market ideas, and a biblical worldview. However, the situation in South Korea is exactly the same as in the United States, where socialist revolutionaries infused with postmodernism and Marxism have taken advantage of the tolerance of democracy to infiltrate all levels of society.
In a nutshell, the situation in South Korea is similar to the time when the Democratic Party in the United States was trying to impeach President Trump by spreading fake news. And leftist lawmakers are grossly abusing their legislative power to block the judicial process of Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the Democratic party, a major opposition force. It is no exaggeration to say that it is a legislative dictatorship. The Democratic Party and the opposition currently hold 192 out of 300 seats. Only eight more seats are needed to amend the constitution.
The Paralysis of Governance
The left-leaning Democratic Party has effectively paralyzed the Yoon administration. Since President Yoon took office, his government has faced 22 impeachment motions targeting its officials. Within just six months of the 22nd National Assembly’s inauguration, the opposition initiated ten additional retaliatory impeachment motions. These have targeted prosecutors investigating Lee Jae-myung, the Auditor General probing corruption under the Moon Jae-in administration, and key officials such as the Minister of the Interior and Safety, the National Defense Minister, and the Chair of the Broadcasting Commission. With the inclusion of President Yoon Suk-yeol and the ministers of defense and interior, the total number of impeachment motions now stands at 25.
Weaponizing the Budget Process
South Korea’s constitutional framework tasks the executive with preparing the annual budget, subject to legislative approval as a check. Yet, in a historic first, the opposition-controlled National Assembly unilaterally slashed the government’s proposed budget, crippling initiatives related to national welfare, economic development, and the operational funds of the presidential office, prosecutors, the Board of Audit and Inspection, and the police. By weaponizing the budget process, the opposition has left the Yoon administration facing severe disruptions.
Shielding an Opposition Leader Under Fire
At the heart of this turmoil is the Democratic Party's effort to shield its leader, Lee Jae-myung, who faces allegations spanning election law violations, corruption, and perjury. His trials have been mired in controversy, including the suspicious deaths of eight individuals linked to his cases. The opposition has even proposed legislative amendments to decriminalize actions central to Lee’s alleged misconduct, further eroding public trust in both the judicial and political systems.
Judicial Credibility at Risk
South Korea's judiciary has seen a dramatic erosion of public trust. Much like in the United States, its courts and prosecutors are heavily influenced by left-leaning ideologies. Corruption allegations have even reached the Supreme Court, with evidence implicating justices in unethical dealings. One notable example is Lee Jae-myung, who narrowly avoided a conviction for illegally institutionalizing his brother—an unexpected Supreme Court acquittal that paved the way for his 2020 presidential run. The presiding justice in that case is now under investigation for alleged ties to Lee’s corruption scandal.
Media Bias and Narratives
South Korea’s media landscape reflects the same polarized dynamics seen in the United States. Major outlets and broadcasting unions, many tied to the militant Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, are dominated by leftist groups. This dominance ensures that left-leaning narratives prevail, while conservative or patriotic perspectives are largely suppressed. Even media branded as "conservative" often fail to challenge this status quo effectively, leaving international audiences with a narrow and skewed understanding of South Korea’s political context.
The Purpose of Martial Law: Restoring Integrity
There is ongoing debate over whether President Yoon’s declaration of martial law was the right decision. However, Yoon has been clear about its purpose: to crush pro-North anti-state forces and protect South Korea’s free constitutional order. According to him, martial law was necessary to counter those seeking to overthrow the nation’s democratic system.
This context is not without precedent. Just over a decade ago, when Kim Jong-un announced the abrogation of the armistice, some South Korean lawmakers secretly declared their intent to align with the North in the event of war, vowing to drive out South Korea's reactionaries and American imperialists. The Constitutional Court dissolved the United Progressive Party over such actions, yet its ideological successors have resurfaced. The Progressive Party, registered in 2017, traces its roots to the disbanded organization and now collaborates with the Democratic Party in the National Assembly. Similarly, the Gyeonggi East Alliance, known as Lee Jae-myung’s action arm, shares these affiliations.
Mainstream left-leaning media have cast Yoon’s martial law declaration as an attempt to deflect from controversies surrounding First Lady Kim Gun-hee. Yet this broader context, critical to understanding the decision, has been largely ignored.
The Shadow of Election Fraud
Although not explicitly stated in the martial law declaration, it has become evident that one of its primary purposes is to investigate election fraud. Following the declaration, the military assumed control of the Central Election Commission and related institutions. Former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, involved in the implementation of martial law, stated in media interviews that the measures were necessary to address widespread suspicions of electoral fraud. But was such a drastic measure truly necessary?
Since 2020, South Korea has faced persistent allegations of election fraud, much like the controversies seen in the United States. The April 2020 parliamentary elections sparked widespread claims of irregularities. The Moon Jae-in government, along with left-leaning media, dismissed these accusations as conspiracy theories. The People Power Party, often classified as a conservative party and currently the ruling party, also followed suit, marginalizing those who raised concerns by barring them from running for office. Public demands for transparency went largely unanswered.
Even under President Yoon's administration, calls for a thorough investigation persisted. Limited investigations and audits of the National Election Commission (NEC) were conducted by the National Intelligence Service and the Board of Audit and Inspection. These efforts revealed critical vulnerabilities in the NEC’s systems, including susceptibility to hacking, as well as extensive illegal activities such as fraudulent hiring practices. In response, calls for a full-scale investigation into election fraud grew louder. However, no further action was taken, leaving only deepening suspicions. This lack of progress stems from the structural characteristics of South Korea’s election system.
Structural Challenges to Accountability
Under South Korea’s constitution, the National Election Commission (NEC) holds equal status with the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This elevated position has shielded the NEC from thorough investigations, audits, or oversight. Tasked with interpreting election law and prosecuting violations, the NEC is often considered the institution lawmakers are most wary of confronting. Allegations of fraud are rarely raised, as they are dismissed as conspiracy theories, leaving lawmakers to battle the NEC’s authority.
The Supreme Court, responsible for handling election litigation, has also shown reluctance to delve into fraud allegations. Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof, as in standard civil lawsuits, even though fraud can only be definitively assessed through a proper investigation. Adding to the public’s mistrust, city and district election commissions are chaired by chief or vice-chief judges of local courts. There have long been calls for reforming the system in which the judiciary is responsible for both overseeing elections and adjudicating election disputes.
This skepticism deepened during the Supreme Court's recount process, where many ballots appeared as crisp and pristine as freshly minted bills, raising concerns. Yet, the court dismissed these issues, further undermining public confidence in its handling of election disputes.
Martial Law Becomes the Last Resort for Electoral Integrity
People may hold differing views on election fraud, but one principle remains clear: elections are public processes, and the public must be able to verify their integrity. In South Korea, however, this fundamental standard is undermined by a deeply corrupt Election Commission that holds near-total control over the verification process. Even legal challenges have failed to meet public expectations, offering little recourse or transparency. The current situation underscores a sobering reality in South Korea: ensuring electoral integrity appears possible only under the extraordinary measure of martial law.
A Defeated Impeachment: A Nation at a Crossroads
Last Saturday, the impeachment bill against President Yoon Seok-yul was defeated. A two-thirds majority was required, but the People Power Party boycotted the vote, leaving only 195 lawmakers in attendance, which prevented the vote from proceeding. While the immediate crisis has been averted, South Korea remains mired in political turmoil and prolonged instability. As the purpose of the current martial law becomes increasingly clear—to investigate allegations of election fraud—the long-suppressed controversy surrounding electoral integrity is expected to resurface with renewed intensity.
The History War: Revisionist Narratives in Politics
South Korea is, in many ways, in the midst of a de facto civil war—a fierce ideological battle over its historical identity. For decades, South Korea has been grappling with what some call a "history war." Much like the American left’s embrace of a revisionist narrative that frames the United States as a nation built on the exploitation of slaves, the South Korean left promotes the view that South Korea’s founding was illegitimate, portraying it as the work of pro-Japanese collaborators under U.S. influence.
Two former presidents, Roh Moo-hyun and Moon Jae-in, have publicly endorsed this perspective, which has fostered hostility toward the United States and sympathy for North Korea and China. Alarmingly, this narrative is embraced by a significant number of opposition lawmakers, including many in the Democratic Party of Korea. During the Moon administration, the party appointed Lee Rae-kyung as head of the Innovation Commission. Lee, who advocates for a controversial "new centennial theory," claimed that South Korea’s modern history is tainted by submission to the United States and called for the creation of a new historical framework. His appointment was met with widespread criticism, forcing him to resign, but his views remain influential within certain circles.
A Call for Vigilance and Partnership
South Korea's patriotic conservatives strongly support President Trump, viewing the last U.S. presidential election as critical to preserving the founding ideals of a nation rooted in a biblical worldview. They recognize that postmodernism and Marxism have deeply distorted America's identity and founding principles, and they see the fight to correct these distortions as equally vital for South Korea. The ideological waves originating from the United States inevitably influence South Korea, often with damaging consequences. Moreover, the evolution of Marxism—through postmodernism, political correctness, woke politics, and critical theory—has served as intellectual fuel for pro-North Korea and pro-China factions within South Korea.
For now, South Korea must navigate this turbulent chapter. To my American friends, I extend a straightforward request: look past the left-leaning, one-sided narratives of South Korea's mainstream media and critically examine the reality on the ground. In these decisive times, choose your partners with care and foresight.
David Eunkoo Kim
Founder & President, Truth Forum
Founded in 2017 at Seoul National University, Truth Forum is South Korea's foremost conservative organization, dedicated to upholding a Judeo-Christian worldview.
For inquiries, please contact us at truthforum.kr@gmail.com.
