At 10:25 p.m. on Dec. 3, 2024, an alarming announcement by President Yoon Suk Yeol struck the nation of South Korea: the country was declared under martial law. For the first time in 45 years, soldiers and tanks marched down the streets, political activities were restricted, and citizens could be arrested without a judicial warrant — an unsettling sight in a modern democracy. Through the soldiers, the National Assembly members were forced to climb through fences and windows of the National Assembly Building to vote on the resolution to lift the martial law, ending the crisis at 5:03 a.m. the following morning. While Yoon justified martial law as a necessary measure to “restore liberal democracy,” many criticized it as a severe undermining of democratic principles, particularly the prohibition of suspending parliament, an alleged violation of the constitution, states Baek from Yonsei University (Baek, 2025). Such abruptness of the event shifts the focus to what truly caused this executive overreach — political polarization. Acknowledging that executives may be tempted to violate democratic norms in the name of crisis management when significant ideological differences render legislative bodies ineffective, we must understand the role of political polarization in spurring Yoon’s unprecedented action and explore solutions to prevent similar instances from happening in the future.

South Korea's parliament has experienced unparalleled levels of political disagreement. According to Han from Cambridge University Press, the degree of political polarization has risen sharply since the second half of 2016 and remained high throughout 2020 (Han, 2022). Furthermore, Cheong & Haggard from the University of California underscore the peak ideological gap between the leading left and right parties in 2020, with a median point difference of five, the most recorded between 2004 and 2020 (Cheong & Haggard, 2023). The significant partisan divide has deeply influenced the legislative dynamics of the National Assembly, raising concerns about its effectiveness.

Han dates the origins of such intense political polarization to 2016-17, President Park Geun-hye's impeachment. The National Assembly's decision to impeach Park, a conservative leader, widened ideological differences among political forces. Competing public demonstrations, such as liberal candlelight rallies and conservative Taegeukgi marches, displayed attempts by political factions to undermine one another (Han, 2022). Tensions persisted during Yoon Suk Yeol's administration, where his election represented an increasingly divided political landscape between conservatives and progressives. The composition of the National Assembly exacerbated the split, with the opposition Democratic Party of Korea holding 170 of the 300 seats, compared to Yoon's People Power Party only holding 108 (National Assembly, 2025). 

The ongoing polarization in South Korea throughout history has had a lasting impact on the government, resulting in a legislative impasse. The 20th National Assembly following Park’s impeachment had the lowest passing percentage of 36% in modern South Korean history (National Assembly, 2021). As such, Carimens & Fowler indicate in Indiana University Press that legislative dysfunction causes presidents to circumvent parliamentary processes, increasing major policy initiatives being implemented through unilateral presidential discretion rather than legislation. In the context of South Korea, political scientists have decried the nation’s “weak party system and deepening polarization,” which has resulted in political actors seeking to “capture the state by whatever means necessary,” restricting democratic stability (Carmines & Fowler, 2017).

President Yoon’s declaration of martial law represents the extreme end of this trend. Under the fundamental threat of the opposition-controlled legislature, Yoon justifies his act by stating that “our National Assembly has become a den of criminals, paralyzing the nation’s judicial and administrative systems through legislative dictatorship” (Yoon, 2024). Analysis by Kuhn from Oregon Pacific Broadcasting (OPB) asserts that Yoon’s martial law decree was indeed aimed at breaking the parliament's resistance (Kuhn, 2025). Political polarization is thus a critical factor in national security, presenting a considerable threat of presidential overreach and jeopardizing democratic institutions. 

To combat extreme political polarization in South Korea, a multifaceted effort that involves institutional reforms, interparty dialogue, and civic engagement is necessary. Yet, in South Korea, where ideological differences are extreme, positive interactions are unlikely to reduce negative outgroup perceptions, making such efforts challenging. In such cases, Voelkel and his colleagues from Stanford University corroborate that interventions aimed at modifying views of a dispute's intransigence rather than changing attitudes toward the combatants will more likely succeed in persuading individuals to collaborate on strategies to move forward (Voelki et al., 2022). Rather than reducing intergroup animus, the primary goals of such conflict-focused interventions would be to improve confidence or involvement in dispute-resolution processes, as well as to suppress antidemocratic perceptions and aggressive or obstructionist actions.

Considering that people with a divided mindset generally have some awareness of the consequences of extreme political division, Bersoff, writing in the Journal of Behavioral Science & Policy, proposes emphasizing such repercussions to motivate people to resolve disputes. According to the Edelman Trust Barometer in 2023, the most-mentioned outcomes foreseen by this group if their country's divisions are continuously unaddressed are violence in the streets (57 percent), a slowing in the rate of economic development (54 percent), the worsening of prejudice and discrimination (53 percent), and the nation's inability to adequately address its societal challenges (52 percent) (Beroff, 2024). Interventions that highlight such outcomes may act as catalysts for increased engagement in the resolution process. Indeed, historical examples further suggest this approach can be effective. The Good Friday Agreement, which ended ethnic violence in Northern Ireland, the Camp David Accords, which led to peace between Israel and Egypt, and the negotiations between Nelson Mandela and F. W. de Klerk, which ended apartheid in South Africa, all demonstrate that progress can be made despite deeply held ideological differences and historical animosity, claims Beroff. These issues were not resolved because intergroup enmity was reduced; they ended because both sides saw ongoing violence and instability as worse than working and compromising with "the enemy” (Beroff, 2024).

Once the polarization shifts away from the extreme end, necessary interventions will be effective. Hartman and his colleagues from the University of South Carolina developed a taxonomy of polarization intervention, proposing a TRI framework encompassing three types: thoughts, relationships, and institutions (Hartman et al., 2022). Thoughts involve correcting misconceptions, reducing misinformation, and emphasizing shared value through fact-checking campaigns, media literacy programs, and exposure to counter-stereotypical information. Relationships center on fostering dialogue, encouraging cross-party interactions, and building social trust. Structured bipartisan discussion programs and workplaces valuing political diversity can humanize political opponents, relieving the intensity of emotion. Lastly, institutions can undergo reform by strengthening democratic reforms and imposing regulations on media that limit sensationalist disinformation.

The recent imposition of martial law in South Korea demonstrates the dangers of severe executive action in response to parliamentary resistance. This phenomenon is deeply rooted in political polarization, which has resulted in a dysfunctional National Assembly and an increased dependence on presidential power. To combat the current dynamics of political polarization, South Korea should enact measures including conflict-focused interventions, increasing awareness of the ramifications of polarization, and implementing the TRI framework of intervention as a long-term solution. In an era of deepening polarization, for a nation and its citizens to truly thrive, they must remain a democracy — the foundation of national stability — ensuring political division never leads to further alarms, military interventions, or the erosion of fundamental freedoms.