By Josephina Lee
Josephina Lee is currently a Research Assistant at the Institute of International and Comparative Public Law at the University of Münster. She studied Sociology as well as Legal Sciences at Korea University in Seoul, Korea. Her research focuses on freedom of speech and other fundamental rights in the South Korean as well as German context.
This article aims to provide some insights into the current political geography in South Korea focusing on the development of right extremism and its impact.
The failed attempt by the President to implement martial law regime and its repercussions have further accelerated polarization and mutual exclusion in political discourse, posing a serious threat to democracy. Touching upon pillars of modern democracy such as the rule of law and freedom of speech, the author seeks to delineate a path forward that upholds the core principles of the Constitution while countering the challenges posed by the surge of the far right in this turbulent chapter of democracy.
Current events in South Korea reveal severe political polarization and the near absence of productive dialogue between opposing political groups. Since the South Korean Parliament revoked the martial law regime declared by the President on December 3, the entire nation is undergoing a significant political turmoil. Both the democrats as well as far-right conservatives believe themselves to represent their version of truth and that their political opponents are anti-state forces working to demolish state order. It is essential to note, however, that when addressing the legal accountability of President Yoon for his declaration of martial law, the conflict should not be framed as one between the conservatives and the liberal democrats. Conservatives seek to preserve the governmental status quo and question the necessity for progressive changes. Far-right extremists, however, undermine the capabilities of the government by supporting the illegal political activities of the President. On the other side, those who participated in and supported mass protests for the impeachment of the President are motivated by the principles of the Constitution and not by any strict adherence to the commands of the Democratic Party. Thus, this moment should be seen as a struggle between those undermining the rule of law and those striving to preserve constitutional democracy.
The true challenge that Korean society faces is that of political radicalism and not simply imposing criminal sanctions against high-ranking political figures involved in the martial law plan. Far-right extremism, as a global trend, manifests itself through its subversion of established principles of democracy and institutions of the state. One predominant strategy for attacking the current democratic system that the far-right groups have adopted in South Korea is the election fraud theory, part of a broader global narrative of right-wing populism. The political success of the most famous figure to have adopted the election fraud narrative, US President Donald Trump, seems to fuel the South Korean version of the narrative.
Additionally, the subversion of constitutional processes has been fostered by the deep skepticism of far-right groups against traditional media outlets. In the past several years, far-right political ideas have been proliferating in online internet communities as well as social media, primarily on YouTube. Users of these platforms often follow alternative information sources, which are disguised under the form of standard journalism, using names such as “Financial Today” and “New Daily” but spreading unverified content including fake news. These platforms, together forming a giant media bubble, are utilized to compromise the legitimacy of institutionalized politics, where extremist right-wing movements garner support and create space for an isolated political discourse based on “alternative truth.”
In South Korea, platforms like YouTube have been actively utilized by far-right groups to consolidate their anti-state ideologies. This was evident when the currently arrested President used his presidential powers based on disinformation spread on YouTube.
His supporters have shown that the South Korean society does not remain an exception to the use of violence against the establishment anymore. On January 19, 2025, far-right groups, led mainly by young conservative males stormed and damaged the Seoul Western District Court. It was a form of protest against the extension of President Yoon’s detention, manifesting violence against a state institution whose role is to guarantee the rule of law. This event revealed the far-reaching consequences of the radical right-wing movements that have been building momentum in recent years, sparking intense political debate on how to address right-wing extremism. The riot, allegedly backed by a prominent pastor of a conservative Protestant church, made it clear to the public that the cooperation of far-right supporters and conservative Christian groups are increasingly capable of organized anti-state violence.
The radicalization of right-wing supporters of the President poses a significant threat, as they do not hesitate to compromise a fundamental element of the Korean Constitution, the rule of law. Rule of law is a central principle of modern constitutionalism, which, combined with the principle of democracy, provides legitimacy to state power and draws limits in its exercise. Rule of law not only enables control of the legality of political action, but also ultimately, enables self-governance that aligns with the interests of the people. Constitutional principles such as separation of power and the principle of legality are derived from the rule of law. These principles are at stake, as far-right advocates of the President as well as high ranking political figures from the ruling People’s Power Party contest the neutrality of Constitutional Court judges, denying the ability of the Court to reach a fair decision.
Notwithstanding the shock that the riot on the District Court has caused, it can generally be said that the readiness to exercise violence for political purposes has significantly decreased in the Korean society. Despite the shock that the riot on the District Court has caused, it can generally be said that the readiness to exercise violence for political purposes has significantly decreased in the Korean society. Until December 2024, the last declaration of martial law and the imposition of a autocratic military regime was in 1979. Additionally, the reduction in public violence is demonstrated by the fact that many army officers and police force that were deployed on December 3 refused to exercise substantial violence on citizens, rendering it difficult for the President to execute his orders. Furthermore, the development of modern communication technologies has proven beneficial to those who seek to preserve stability amidst severe political antagonism.
Due to increased transparency, as well as the possibility of real-time control, it has become significantly harder to distort political intentions. A representative example is the live broadcast of the Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung shortly after the President’s declaration of martial law. He urged citizens via live broadcast to gather at the National Assembly, and his supporters who responded by coming to the Parliament became witnesses of the historical event.
Even though there is some pessimistic media coverage, now is certainly not the time for a doomsday scenario. First and foremost, it is highly likely that the President’s impeachment will be declared constitutional and his actions on the day of martial law declaration unlawful. The retreat of the President and his supporters as a result of impeachment, however, will not mark an end to the prevalence of far-right extremism in South Korean political discourse. The far-right movement is mobilizing disinformation, fraud election theory, and the alleged unfairness of the democratic system to consolidate their power and secure seats in future elections.
Despite the political antagonism that dominates the current landscape, those who seek to uphold constitutional values must refrain from demonizing their opponents and excluding them from open political discourse. Some oppositional figures including the former President Moon from the Democratic Party are calling for a stricter regulation in speech and assembly laws to address the negative impact of fake news. Even while these forms of regulations on political expression may seem to have deterrence effect in the short term, speech regulation cannot be the remedy for far right and fascist ideologies. The aim of such regulations should not be political upmanship but bipartisan political moderation.
In the long term, both internal and independent external control mechanisms set up by media organizations should be established to guarantee the reliability of journalism. It is worth emphasizing that liberal Constitution mandates criticism against core ideas and principles of the Constitution as long as it does not amount to a concrete and substantial threat to the system. Challenges against validity of law allows reflection on defining principles of our ever-changing society and promotes flexibility and inclusivity in the constitution. The denial of political opponent’s right to exist and express will further accelerate political polarization.
More fundamentally, South Korean society should use the recent events to reflect on its historical and cultural legacies to address the root causes of far-right extremism, such as phantom anti-communism and authoritarian, hierarchical ideologies. These ideologies have dominated the political dynamics since the Korean war (1950-1953), culminating in the period of consecutive military regimes and Cold War until the Democratic Revolution of 1987. In the 1990s and 2000s, leftist parties have exercised moderate influence, but these political groups operated within a social-democratic framework. Even though explicit association to communist ideologies is no longer visible in institutional politics, anti-communism still serves as a scheme for far right to discredit political opponents. Furthermore, preventive measures against the rise of far-right extremism should begin early, such as through education and cultural upbringing across diverse social contexts. Countering right extremism requires cultivating an environment where political discourse takes place based on trust in democratic institutions as well as fundamental constitutional principles. An important part of such practice is to give up the ideal of the “objective truth” and accept the necessity of political compromises in a democratic society. Acknowledging that no single party can represent the objective truth or justice is a prerequisite for a mature democracy. The current crisis in Korea demands a more careful and sensitive approach from both the liberals and the conservatives.
