Moderated by Philippe Li (KEY)
Philippe Li: Recently, President Yoon of South Korea declared martial law as a state of emergency, which was rescinded by a motion adopted by the National Assembly less than six hours after the declaration. President Yoon was later impeached by the Parliament. It happens that the day after, on December 3, the French government led by Michel Barnier collapsed due to a non-confidence motion adopted by the French National Assembly. How do you assess the current political situation in South Korea and France? What kind of reflections does it inspire?
Seungjoo Lee: I would like to place the current events in Korea within a broad comparative context. There have been numerous discussions and even debates about the possibility of democratic decay and democratic backsliding worldwide. I believe this is related to the political polarization seen in major countries around the world. The current events we are witnessing in Korea are also, to some extent, related to political polarization. It is now time for policymakers, politicians, and experts to reconsider the political foundations of democracy.
At the same time, it is undeniable that martial law was a shocking event for Korea. On the bright side, however, Korea nonetheless showed its ability to deal with this unusual situation within a constitutional framework. The National Assembly did what it was supposed to do and turn the tide in time. It vividly demonstrated the resilience of democracy in Korea.
Nevertheless, we face daunting challenges in dealing with political polarization. If not properly addressed, it would pose a constant threat to the stability of democracy not just in Korea but also in many parts of the world.
Mathieu Duchâtel: The parallel is very striking between presidential decisions leading to unpredictable outcomes and the uncertainty injected into the democratic system: the dissolution of the National Assembly last June in France, leading to the censorship against the French government, the imposition of martial law for about six hours in Korea, leading to the risks of impeachment for the president.
What is striking in the Korean case is the resilience of the democratic system in the face of the imposition of martial law. The most striking element in the French case is the alliance between the hard right and the hard left in support of censoring the government, but also the complete reversal of positions between the hard right and the center-right on the question of pensions - a shift that reveals deep electoral calculations.
One core issue has been the indexation of pensions to inflation, a measure that previous governments under the presidency of Macron had adopted, but that the Barnier government pushed to cancel in order to ease pressure on strained public finances. The measure would have saved 4 billion euros during the first half of 2025. In response, the hard right has taken the position of previous center-right governments. Senior citizens over 65 years old are a constituency that represents 20% of the French population, and they tend to vote more than the rest of the electorate. They have historically been a stronghold of President Macron, which explains why the hard right works hard to court them. They need senior voters to win the 2027 presidential election.
As a result, public policies are being put on hold for electoral calculations regarding the upcoming presidential election. Party interests prevail over addressing urgent fiscal challenges based on a long-term view of France’s national interest.
Another compelling point of comparison between Korea and France is the nature of political polarization. In Korea, it is largely binary, while in France, it is currently tri-partisan, with three blocks of roughly equal strength. This tripartite power structure creates an unprecedented factor of uncertainty in French politics. Several types of alignment are possible depending on policy issues and party interests, creating huge instability for the system.
Philippe Li: In this context, I would like to add a few points. First of all, it is interesting to observe that in both countries, there was a form of deadlock in parliament - not just in legislative bodies, but also in the exercise of political power through the parties. Whether one agrees or not - and we might not agree - both presidents have attempted to use certain tools to resolve or overcome this deadlock. However, it seems to have been a failure in both cases. The efforts were inadequate in both instances and the legitimacy of the means used in Korea highly questionable..
I think what you emphasized about the constitution is very important because when we talk about democracy, we tend to focus heavily on politics, political parties, and individuals. But democracy is much more than that - it is about institutions. The solidity and effectiveness of institutions and constitutions ultimately determine how they function. In France, there have been discussions about the Constitution of the Fifth Republic being somewhat outdated. There is talk of reform due to the current political framework. However, I’m not sure that such reform would necessarily act as a safeguard against undesirable decisions, and it seems the same could be said for Korea. I believe constitutional institutions have served as safeguards in both cases, and it is reassuring to see this point.
The second point is that using political or institutional tools without public or citizen support is not feasible. This is true not only because we are democratic countries, but also because public opinion dictates the rules of the game today. This might explain the confusion and surprise surrounding the decisions made by Yoon and Macron, which did not appear to be based on popular support. Had it been supported by the public, we might have seen a different outcome. But from the outset, it lacked both political support and citizens’ backing.
About the interviewees
Seungjoo Lee
Mathieu Duchâtel
コメント