Duyeon Kim is an adjunct senior fellow with the Indo-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security and a visiting professor at the Yonsei University Graduate School of International Studies. She is based in Seoul.
SMITH: After the attempt to impose martial law failed, the South Korean National Assembly sought to impeach President Yoon. But that too failed. Why?
KIM: The six opposition parties in the National Assembly entered an impeachment motion, which was their twenty-third motion during Yoon’s term. However, to succeed, they needed the ruling People Power Party (PPP) to vote with them. In other words, Yoon’s fate was in the hands of his own party members during the vote on December 7.
The impeachment vote was scrapped by the National Assembly because the PPP boycotted the vote, and thus, the National Assembly could not reach a quorum of two hundred members needed to impeach the president. It is quite common for political parties to boycott votes in the Assembly. I was told that the PPP decided to do this to prevent government paralysis and that the country had been scarred before by the impeachment of former President Park Geun-hye. We can certainly assume they also want to maintain power as the ruling party.
The main opposition and progressive Democratic Party of Korea vowed to introduce impeachment motions on a rolling basis until it passes.
In a televised apology on December 7, Yoon said his martial law declaration was out of “desperation” and that he “entrusts” the country’s affairs to his party and the government.
SMITH: So, what does that mean? Who is leading the country and what happens next?
KIM: This seems to be a gray area that has prompted conflicting views among legal scholars. The leader of the PPP, Han Dong-hoon, says the Prime Minister will handle state affairs, but no one in the government is calling him “acting president.” The only legal way for the Prime Minister to serve as “acting” is if the presidency is vacant due to resignation, impeachment, or health problems.
The Defense Ministry says Yoon is still the commander-in-chief. He has reportedly continued to handle senior personnel decisions. So, it looks like Yoon is still the President legally, but in practice, the Prime Minister and the ruling party say they are working together to ensure that the country functions normally.
The Ministry of Justice has imposed a travel ban on Yoon pending an investigation into the opposition party’s accusation of treason for declaring martial law.
The PPP leader, Han, also promised that Yoon would “resign in an orderly” manner but has yet to explain what that looks like and when he might do so.
Conservative pundits are discussing three possible scenarios. First, Yoon resigns voluntarily. But the ruling party is against this because it would mean a snap presidential election in sixty days, which would be around February next year at the earliest. The ruling party is not prepared for a snap election because it does not have a leading candidate to replace Yoon. They also worry that the
– What are the potential consequences for President Yoon’s ability too govern if he remains in office despite the scandal?
**SMITH:** Do you think President Yoon can effectively govern after this,even if he avoids formal removal from office?
