It is hard to know what to make of the failed coup in South Korea that happened overnight.
At one level, this can be seen as the desperate act of a president whose popularity rating was collapsing, and who had lost control of the country's parliament, and as a consequence his ability to push through any legislation that he desired. Aligning what he believed to be his own best interests with those of the state, in a fashion commonplace amongst too many politicians, and most especially those of right wing persuasion, he then declared that those opposing him were seeking to undermine that state, which claim then supposedly justified his actions.
What we now know is that he did not even secure the support of his own party in that parliament when it came to reaction to the coup. The opposition to his declaration was universal amongst those politicians who managed to assemble in the middle of the night, despite military occupation of the parliament, and not a single parliamentarian stood up for him. The coup was over.
That is, however, too simple an interpretation of what happened to be entirely credible. The president, his advisers, and the military had obviously planned what was to happen. That the army was ready and willing to act on the president's unconstitutional orders must be deeply worrying for Koreans this morning. Armies that have tasted power rarely returned to their barracks without consequence. The risk of further instability must, as a result, be high.
The president must have also received some advice that he had potential support for his actions, even if it looks to have been misplaced. It is, again, unlikely that sentiment amongst powerful supporters, of whom he presumably has some, will be easily constrained, although I have read that media condemnation of his actions is almost universal across the spectrum of political viewpoints the media in question. That, at least, provides some hope that stability can be restored.
There can, however, be no believer in democratic government who can take any comfort from what happened. Support for democracy is hardly in a good place right now. The USA is tottering on the brink of fascism. Neo-fascist parties are securing significant support across Europe. Romania looks as though it might fall under the control of a far-right president. There is significant political instability in Germany and France, to which the far-right is contributing. The UK is governed with indifference by a government that appears intent on promoting a far-right alternative to itself. This is not a moment when believers in universal suffrage and the right of the individual to be represented within the power hierarchies of the state can be relaxed. I am, most certainly, anything but relaxed.
For me, the biggest lesson from last night's failed coup is that even in what look like stable democracies there are those who think that the time has come to overthrow democratic government. For a long time I did not think that this would happen in my lifetime, but now it is, and there is popular support for that to happen.
I suspect that for some time people might have thought me to be a little extreme when stating on this blog that the whole system of democratic government was under threat. The reality that this is the case is now overwhelmingly clear. The question arising is, are people willing to do anything to defend it?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
One big difference though is that Korea had experienced Dictatorships so perhaps there was more of a feeling of ‘Never Again’ that you might get in the UK or USA.
Also of course Korea has a conscript army not a volunteer one as the French experience showed – if it looks difficult or dangerous they sent the all volunteer Foreign Legion not the Army.
South Korea feels like a stable democracy but most of its post-1945 history is authoritarianism and/or military dictatorship, from 1948 to 1960 under Syngman Rhee (who was driven into exile by a popular uprising); from 1962 to 1979 under Park Chung Hee (assassinated by another army officer); and from 1980 to 1988 under Chun Doo-hwan (also driven out of power by the people). So real popular democracy is really little more than a generation old.
So we have an army that has an institutional memory of intervention in political affairs. And a populace that recalls what happens (massacres; concentration camps; corruption) and what needs to be done to stop it. So thousands of them were quickly out on the streets in the middle of the night.
The economic development of South Korea has been astonishing but it still has domination of the economy by a few massive corporate conglomerates, the chaebols (Samsung, Hyundai, LG, etc).
We do it differently.
We already have anti protest laws, anti terror laws, which have resulted in political prisoners – locked up or simply arrested and their homes ransacked, their phones and laptops confiscated for being annoying, for informing juries of their powers, for walking too slowly or having a relative who has demonstrated against arms to Israel.
Essentially, police have unlimited powers under some of these laws. Undercover policing going back decades has not only fathered children with innocent victims but apparently incited actions to discredit left wing groups.
The sub-fascist press have got away with criminal behaviour – Levenson II postposned indefinitely.
We are still a democracy but a deeply flawed one – a mis informed one – one with politics drowning in corrupt money from vested interests which entrenches the power of those in charge.
So we dont need a coup, army on the streets – far too crude.
You once wrote, if my memory serves, that about 30% of the population is quite prejudiced -and many bigoted-in their views and will vote for authoritarian parties.
Looking at the various elections across Europe that does seem about right. Not enough to take power by themselves in a PR system. But with FPTP a Tory party dog wagged by a Reform tail, might manage to take power.
It is up to other parties to up their game in the direction of real democracy-not agents of neo-liberalism. Conservative voters put off by the Reform party, most Green and Lib Dem voters might well feel the same plus a lot of Labour who are underwhelmed by Starmer and his camp.
I may be too optimistic but there is still a lot to play for.
I agree – FPTP is the big threat
For me, the question is ‘Is your democracy, actually a democracy?’.
I would argue that many are not.
But what the Right always does is get its claim in first that forces are afoot to topple that which they know is not exactly a democracy. They create the enemy within first, when in fact they and their funders are the enemy within. Fascism in full flow and even seizing the exception.
And then we are subject to the whole charade again over preserving a democracy that is not really a democracy so we can say things like ‘Democracy is imperfect but it is the best system that we have got’ and other agenda serving tosh like that.
I describe myself as ‘post-democratic’; I don not believe in my democracy nor quite a few others too.
To me the whole lot needs tearing down and re-engineering before it kills us all.
PR, limiting private funding in politics, investing as if ALL people matter and even having the courage to create the exceptions needed for the common good of us all is something we should aim for if we want a better democracy.
Exceptions:
Taxes on wealth – these are too low and they are doing things with their money they should not be (funding politics, feeding the public sector/NHS privatisation binge).
Dealing with the carbon, sugar and salt lobbies which impose costs on us all.
Tolerating murder and genocide by rogue states.
Give me a democracy that delivers stuff like this. Give me something to believe in. Give me something that makes life better, that actually promotes life rather than a just making me a unit of consumption.
Please!
Seconded
The UK also needs a sensible written Constitution to define the limits of politicians’ power and the penalties for breaching them. It’s beyond ludicrous that UK Constitutional matters are defined by ancient custom, the opinions of mainly 19th century political thinkers, legal precedence and are frequently nowhere to be found in Statute. This antiquated convention and the FPTP electoral system can (and does) result in Governments having almost unlimited powers in Parliament, as we’ve witnessed all too often. The outcome is corruption, needless waste of funds and the failure of Governments to act in the interests of the people.
The message has not been lost on Scotland, where UK Gov interference can (and does) overturn legitimate decisions of Holyrood. If Scotland ever gains independence, a written Constitution enshrined in Statute would be a sine qua non. We’ve seen what happens under the UK system and who’d want to repeat that?