What’s Going On in South Korea?

In an alarming display of constitutional breakdown, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law last week, accusing the opposition-controlled National Assembly of undermining his presidency. The crisis ended quickly when the parliament unanimously overturned the order, but the incident underscores a troubling trend seen across democratic nations: the weaponization of supposedly impartial institutions and the subsequent collapse of political trust.

This isn’t just a South Korean problem. From Israel to Hungary, Brazil, and even the United States, constitutional crises are becoming disturbingly common. They all stem from a shared issue: the erosion of checks and balances and the growing reliance on unelected, “objective” institutions to police corruption and enforce justice.

Yoon’s martial law declaration came amidst a bitter feud with the opposition Democratic Party, which controls the legislature. Accusing them of protecting corrupt officials and attempting to manipulate state prosecutors for political gain, Yoon took drastic measures, claiming the assembly had become a tool of North Korean influence.

The Democratic Party, meanwhile, accused Yoon of trying to sideline investigations into his administration while weaponizing law enforcement against its own leadership.

This vicious cycle of accusation and retaliation highlights the core issue: democratic institutions designed for political accountability are now themselves seen as tools of political warfare.

In healthy democracies, systems of checks and balances executive, legislative, and judicial branches ensure that no single group or individual can amass unchecked power. However, as government power has centralized into administrative bureaucracies over the past century, those traditional mechanisms have atrophied.

The result? The task of policing corruption has been outsourced to unelected entities such as state prosecutors, attorney generals, or judicial panels, which are touted as impartial. However, these bodies are often subject to the same political pressures they are meant to resist, leading to further weaponization.

• South Korea: Prosecutors investigating corruption in the opposition and the president’s administration have become pawns in the country’s political war.

• Israel: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces multiple prosecutions that many believe are politically motivated. When he challenges the judicial system, he’s accused of undermining democracy.

• Brazil: President Lula da Silva is accused of using the judiciary and police to crush opposition figures like Jair Bolsonaro while consolidating his own power.

• United States: The Department of Justice and FBI have been accused of targeting Donald Trump, fueling calls for their overhaul if he returns to office.

When impartial institutions fail or are perceived as failing the political system spirals into crisis. Leaders accused of corruption are either shielded by partisan allies or attacked by politically motivated enforcers. Meanwhile, attempts to reform these institutions are seen as assaults on democracy itself.

This leads to two catastrophic outcomes:

• Authoritarian Overreach: Leaders like Lula in Brazil use weaponized institutions to consolidate power under the guise of “protecting democracy.”

• Public Distrust: Citizens lose faith in democratic systems altogether, as political opponents use the machinery of justice as a weapon.

The crisis in South Korea is just the latest in a string of examples that expose the fragility of democracies when power is centralized in supposedly neutral bureaucracies. What was once a system of accountability through elected branches of government has become a high-stakes game of institutional warfare.

In the United States, the impeachment process has devolved into a partisan tool. In Brazil, Lula’s corruption was swept aside to return him to power, only for him to use his position to dismantle opposition forces. In Israel, attempts to reform the judiciary have sparked nationwide protests, as trust in supposedly neutral institutions continues to erode.

This crisis demands a return to the original principles of democratic republics: strong checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Power must shift away from administrative states and back into the hands of elected officials who are accountable to the people.

The alternative is what we’re seeing now: a world where constitutional crises become the norm, trust in democracy collapses, and nations spiral into chaos.

The breakdown isn’t inevitable, but it requires courage from citizens and leaders alike to demand accountability and reject the false promises of bureaucratic neutrality. Without a course correction, South Korea won’t be the last democracy to flirt with collapse.

Share this article or subscribe to our newsletter for more analysis on global governance.