Few believed martial law was the way for South Korea - that's why it failed

South Korea's declaration of martial law on Tuesday night, and then abrupt reversal a few hours later, came as a shock to the vast majority of the country's population. Martial Law Commander Army General Park Ann-soo had been forthright. The move came, he said in a statement, "to protect liberal democracy and ensure public safety in the Republic of Korea against the threat posed by anti-state forces conspiring to overthrow the nation's system". The country’s Parliament disagreed, with lawmakers voting unanimously to lift martial law in the early hours of Wednesday. Outside observers may have been surprised by the upheaval; to them, the country may seem to have been a relatively stable democracy since 1988 and the establishment of the Sixth Republic. But its politics have been extraordinarily fractious and, some might claim, vindictive. Since then, five ex-presidents have been subject to criminal investigations; four were sentenced to jail and one died by suicide. The current leadership faces an opposition-controlled National Assembly, which, it says, has "paralysed the administration", impeaching members of its cabinet and blocking legislation. President Yoon Suk-yeol now faces calls to resign, and possible impeachment himself. Regional leaders will be careful in their responses. South Korea is an important trading partner, and while many do not wish to take sides in any US-China rivalry they do not, in private, object to the country's alliance with America. They may not say so publicly, but if managed carefully, they see that alliance as being able to contribute to balance in the Asia-Pacific . And beyond expressions of "concern", they will not wish to involve themselves in the internal politics of a nearby friend. The principle of "non-interference" is a key pillar of regional organisations such as the Association of South-East Asian Nations (Asean). More widely, however, and especially in foreign policy and security circles, the sentiment will go beyond "concern" about the – albeit brief – establishment of martial law. For the region has extensive experience of variants of this policy, and it has rarely proved to be beneficial in the long run. When Gen Ne Win seized power in Myanmar in 1962, for instance, it may well have been the case that the country was in danger of disintegration. But the "Burmese Way to Socialism" that he pursued until he stepped down in 1988 reduced a state once known as the "rice basket of South-East Asia" to what the UN called a "least developed country". The February 2021 military coup, after a decade of hybrid democracy , has led to a prolonged civil war, a humanitarian crisis and more than three million people displaced. Similarly, when then president Sukarno declared martial law in Indonesia in 1957, it was partly in reaction to the grave instability in the country at the time. But it also served to further empower the armed forces that effectively forced him from power in 1966 and then ran the country under the New Order regime until 1998. In the Philippines, when then president Ferdinand Marcos instituted martial law in 1972, it was the turning point after which a formerly popular politician moved to what he called an ideology of "constitutional authoritarianism". Others would use stronger words to describe his subsequent rule. In Cambodia, then prime minister Lon Nol introduced martial law in 1970, but was so brutal in suppressing a rebellion that had broken out, that he “inadvertently” drove “many peasants into supporting the Communist Party of Kampuchea, also known as the Khmer Rouge ”, as a US Department of Defence study put it. The Khmer Rouge would later drive him from power in 1975 and led a genocidal regime that led to the deaths of nearly 25 per cent of the population, until Vietnam invaded and toppled the administration in 1979. Thailand has a history of military coups d’etat , with the most recent imposition of martial law being from 2014 to 2015. Again, the reason given may have been "to preserve law and order", but most analysts believe that military rule can only ever freeze the country’s deep political divisions, not resolve them. South Korea has its own experiences of martial law as well, but it had not, until Tuesday, been declared for 44 years. The country has in fact been held up as a model of the democratic system, even hosting the third Summit for Democracy in May this year. Not everyone would put it on quite such a pedestal, but a Chatham House report in 2022 nevertheless concluded that “the challenges of contemporary South Korean politics are neither intractable nor a sign of irreconcilable differences”. However, whatever troubles the country and its current leadership may be facing, and whatever uncharted waters may lie ahead, there appear to be few, either in South Korea or the wider region, who believe that martial law is a realistic solution. South-East and East Asia have undergone lengthy periods of such rule. Most believe it belongs, and deserves to belong, in the history books.