A swift but dangerous coup cannot be ignored

“There is no such thing as a two-hour coup,” former President Yoon Suk-yeol insisted repeatedly, from the moment of the Dec. 3 martial law declaration to his final statements last month. Yoon argued that because the episode ended swiftly and resulted in no casualties, it was merely a minor incident. However, this perspective is misleading and runs counter to fundamental understanding. A coup, by nature, tests whether key power institutions can be seized within a matter of hours.

Clayton Thyne, a coup expert and professor at the University of Kentucky, noted, “Many coups conclude within hours, and only a few extend beyond a few days.” Coups that falter partway tend to be even shorter. For instance, in 2022, Peruvian President Pedro Castillo’s attempted coup also collapsed in just two hours. The Guardian remarked at the time, “He was a dictator for only two hours.”

Moreover, court testimony revealed that Yoon had ordered the closure of the National Assembly, the removal of lawmakers, and the arrest of prominent political figures. Such actions indicate that the incident was neither a mere mishap nor a cautionary exercise. This context could bolster the case for a severe sentence in Yoon’s forthcoming rebellion trial, with the first verdict anticipated in roughly two weeks.

The Dec. 3 martial law marked the first instance of a “top-down rebellion” in South Korea’s constitutional history. In earlier coups, power was seized from below. During the May 16 military takeover, then-Army Second Corps commander Park Chung-hee used force to overthrow the government, and in the Dec. 12 coup, then-Security Command chief Chun Doo-hwan mobilized troops to do the same. Yoon, by contrast, acted as commander in chief and head of state, directing the military and police from the apex of the system to suppress political opponents.

Coups carried out by loyalists of elected leaders are more likely to succeed and more corrosive to constitutional order because they hollow out democracy from within. That logic underpinned the 23-year prison sentence handed down last month to former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo by Judge Lee Jin-gwan. In delivering the ruling, the judge said, “The danger posed by a top-down rebellion cannot be compared to a bottom-up rebellion.”

Shifts in historical context may also weigh against Yoon. Some critics argue that Han’s sentence exceeded the 15-year term sought by prosecutors and was even harsher than the 22 years and six months imposed on former President Roh Tae-woo in 1996 for a similar rebellion-related offense. They note that the Dec. 12 coup and the May 18 Gwangju Democratization Movement, in which Roh was implicated, resulted in numerous deaths and injuries, while the Dec. 3 martial law did not. Others point to differences in the degree of each defendant’s involvement.

Legal experts emphasize that the latest declaration of martial law came nearly half a century after coups had faded from South Korea’s political reality under military rule. In the 1980s, gross national income per capita stood at just $1,749. Today, it exceeds $36,745, a shift that significantly raises the economic and social stakes of any rebellion. As one sitting judge observed, “Perceptions of illegality change over time. Crimes such as bribery or sexual offenses are punished more severely now, and the same principle applies to rebellion.” From a deterrence perspective, they argue, a firm sentence is essential to prevent reckless efforts to undermine democratic institutions and jeopardize the economic gains built by generations of citizens.

Yoon’s lack of reflection or remorse during the trial may further weigh against him at sentencing. Even former President Chun Doo-hwan bowed his head in his final statement, saying he would accept either imprisonment or death. Yoon, by contrast, repeatedly shifted blame to Cabinet ministers, military commanders and the National Assembly, while denying any personal responsibility. The fact that a majority of the public continues to withhold forgiveness may also be difficult for the court to disregard.