How South Korea BARELY Escaped Dictatorship in 2024

The President Implemented Martial Law

On December 4, 2024, at 10:30pm, in the democratic, peaceful country of South Korea, the President (Yoon Suk Yeol) attempted to institute martial law, and simultaneously disband the National Assembly – the only branch of government with the power to end the martial law.

There was no civil unrest, there was nothing unusual about the day and no threat at the time. But the President wasn’t able to push his agenda through the normal process because the opposing party controlled the National Assembly (like their version of Congress).

This is an example of how fragile a democracy really is. And in this case, likely the only thing that saved the country was the fact that in the National Assembly, the Democratic Party (similar to the US Democratic party), was the opposing party. The Democratic Party and other small opposition parties together have 192 seats. The 190-0 vote that rejected martial law included the votes of 18 lawmakers from the PPP (People Power Party – their version of Republicans), according to National Assembly officials. Party leader Han Dong-hun and Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon, also a member, criticized Yoon’s martial law declaration.

As you’ll see from the video below, the reason there were only 190 votes was because all of these legislators had to get past the military blockading the building in order to vote. The 18 PPP members clearly had to work at it to get in there.

Although members of the president’s own party did vote to end the event, why did so few of them make it into the building when so many of the opposition party did? My guess is because most didn’t try. They were probably happy to go along with the coup because it would’ve been good for them.

Video Overview of the Event

Bullshit Excuses

President Yoon Suk Yeol of South Korea said he was actually trying to:

“…counter an opposition that was “trying to overthrow the free democracy…”

This is yet another example of political leaders saying one thing and doing exactly the opposite. This type of behavior is straight out of George Orwell’s nightmare, and he called it doublethink in the classic 1984.

Today, we call it gaslighting when someone tries to spend something to make it sound like they have Noble intentions for nefarious means. And this is dictatorship 101. All of the world’s notable monstrous dictators claim what they’re doing is for the benefit of people and the protection of freedom and liberty.

Examples and Quotes from Authoritarian Leaders

Here are a few examples where leaders justified power grabs under the guise of protecting freedom or public welfare:

Adolf Hitler (Germany):

“We are determined to bring our people the freedom to live and work. We do not believe in democracy for the sake of democracy, but in democracy for the sake of the people. Our National Socialist movement is a liberation movement, freeing the German people from the chains of an unjust treaty and the yoke of Marxism.”

This statement illustrates how Hitler manipulated the language of freedom to justify the rise of the Nazi Party, claiming to protect the German people from perceived oppression (the Treaty of Versailles and communism), while systematically dismantling their actual freedoms. His use of terms like “liberation” and “freedom” belied his establishment of a totalitarian regime.

Kim Jong-il (North Korea):

Kim often justified his regime’s oppressive policies as defending the Korean people from imperialist threats, saying:

“Our socialism is a socialism that defends the people’s freedom and independence and provides them with a genuine life.”

In reality, his rule suppressed freedom and created an oppressive surveillance state.

Vladimir Putin (Russia):

Justifying the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Putin claimed:

“We are defending the right of the people of Crimea to self-determination, just as we have always defended the freedom of people around the world.”

This narrative masked actions widely viewed as a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Fidel Castro (Cuba)

“We have been given the task of defending freedom in the Americas.”

Castro used this line in speeches to justify his one-party rule and suppression of dissent, framing it as a bulwark against imperialism.

Kim Il-sung (North Korea)

“Freedom and independence are the lifeblood of our nation.”

Despite leading a rigid dictatorship, Kim frequently claimed that his government was the ultimate protector of Korean freedom from imperialism.

Saddam Hussein (Iraq)

“We must safeguard the freedom and independence of Iraq so that our people can live in dignity and peace.”
Saddam regularly used such rhetoric to justify his brutal dictatorship and suppression of political opponents.

Hugo Chávez (Venezuela)

“This revolution is for liberty, for the people to finally be free.”

Chávez often claimed his increasingly authoritarian measures were necessary to protect Venezuelans from imperialist exploitation.

These instances highlight the manipulation of language by authoritarian leaders to justify power grabs or repressive measures while framing them as protective or liberating actions.

Why Americans Might Be Concerned Today

Donald Trump’s rhetoric has raised concerns among citizens and critics due to statements that suggest an authoritarian approach, a disregard for democratic norms, or a focus on consolidating power. Here are some notable examples where his language and actions have alarmed people who fear nefarious intentions:

“When somebody’s the president of the United States, the authority is total.”

• Source: April 2020, COVID-19 press briefing
• Trump claimed total authority over states’ actions during the pandemic, despite the Constitution granting significant powers to states. This raised alarms about his understanding and potential overreach of executive power.

“The press is the enemy of the people.”

• Source: Numerous occasions, including Twitter
• This phrase, reminiscent of authoritarian leaders who undermine free press to maintain control, alarmed critics and journalists. A free press is a cornerstone of democracy, and his hostility toward it led to fears of attempts to erode press freedoms.

“You’ll never take back our country with weakness.”

• Source: January 6, 2021, rally preceding the Capitol riot
• This statement was viewed as inflammatory by critics, who argued it emboldened the mob that stormed the Capitol. His language was seen as undermining the peaceful transfer of power—a fundamental democratic principle.

“I have Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”

• Source: July 2019, speech on executive power
• Trump’s misrepresentation of Article II of the Constitution raised concerns about his perception of presidential authority and disregard for checks and balances.

“Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

• Source: February 2018, meeting on gun control
• This statement, advocating bypassing due process, shocked many as it contradicted the constitutional principle of protecting individual rights.

“I’ll put them all in jail.”

• Source: 2018, private discussion about journalists, reported by The Guardian
• Trump reportedly expressed this sentiment about journalists he viewed as critical of him, raising concerns about press freedom under his leadership.

“We’ll negotiate a third term because we’re probably entitled to it.”

• Source: August 2020, campaign rally
• Joking or not, Trump’s suggestion of extending his presidency beyond constitutional limits unsettled critics who saw it as an erosion of respect for the two-term limit.

Final Thoughts

My big question is: What will Trump supporters say and do if the constitutional government is subverted? And how does the citizenship of the US oppose a dictatorial minded President who is backed by majority control in the congress, and an overwhelmingly Republican judiciary. IF he were to make a move like Yoon Suk Yeol…