From what I understand, the military high command supported Yoon even after the assembly voted down martial law. If that’s true, didn’t he have everything to go through with the coup?
The high command might have been on Yoon’s side, but the soldiers on the ground were not. The high command can’t do shit if no one will follow their orders.
Soldiers were ordered to surround the Parliament and prevent a vote to end martial law. Yet the soldiers who were at the Parliament refused to fire upon or physically stop the politicians.
Couldn’t that have been just because of the immediate confusion and indecision about escalating by the lower unit commanders?
There could have been infighting in the military, but he surely would have had quite some support, no? Why not take the chance if he already commited to imposing martial law?
Edit: sorry if it came across like I support the guy. I don’t. I’m just interested in sociology and politics. If you downvote me, could you explain what I’m getting wrong?
Infighting in the military is a significant escalation on the path towards a civil war. The chance for the coup to have any appearance of legitimacy was lost very quickly so it was either take that risk or back down. Ideally for a coup to succeed you have these details sorted and a plan in place to seize control before you start the coup, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here so backing down was the only realistic choice.
There are dozens of photos that most of the military unit who were active at the parliament did not have magazines in their guns and often had blue training guns in their holsters or blue training pins in their assault rifles.
This is nothing you do by accident - especially not in a highly qualified military like the SK military. It is a very good way of making sure that for starters none does something stupid like kill a MP, but also to show other units (and people) that you are not really on the side of whoever commanded you to do what you do. And it mak sure you look favorable in court if things turn against you.
Considering that this was not a singular occurrence but happened amongst all types of units someone has ordered them/coordinatated this.
How high up that was? Who knows. But it was a pretty strong sign, especially towards other units.
Who knows, in theory it could also be a valid scenario that the military was “faking support” to motivate Yoon,knowing that he will be impeached after that.
Score one for humanity!
Are you asking how Yoon could have had a better coup?
I don’t support him, if that’s what you’re asking. I’m just curious about sociology and politics. :)
It’s absolutely too early to say what support he had or thought he had.
He didn’t really know for sure, either, I don’t think. That’s why it’s weird to me that he just ‘surrendered’. Was what happened completely legal this way? Can he not go to prison?
It’s absolutely too early to say. The SK courts will bear this out. Anything you’d hear in this forum or the news is just conjecture.
True. I’m not taking any takes here to be definitely true. I was just interested in other people’s perspectives until we get a proper response. :)
I looked at the username. Just in case.
Sorry, not that well-versed in the ecosystem here yet. What could my username have meant?
I meant just in case it was something like “Yoon_the_coon420” or something like that.
Ah, I see. I thought there was a community of infamous South Korean conservatives or something.
edit: typo
Imho no. Apparently (I have not dealt with South Korean politics before this) he was quite unpopular to beginn with. Blatantly disregarding the elected parlament would have destroyed any resemblance of a “lawful” takeover and might have provoked protest from all parts of society.
Also afaik saying he lifted martial law after the assembly vote is wrong in the sense that martial law was lifted by the assembly already. Pressing on would have put him in breach of the constitution. Of course he probably couldn’t care less but keeping the appearance of still being a democracy is import. Most autocracy’s nowadays work this way. People get to choose but the guy on top gets to pick the options.
People get to choose but the guy on top gets to pick the options.
Managed Democracy!
If the people voted by filling out Facebook quizzes
Representative Democracy.
If Representative Democracy isn’t democracy, then Switzerland is the only true democracy.
I do struggle to feel that representative democracy is true democracy, because it usually struggles to represent what people really want.
In the age of computers we should be voting for everything as a collective.
Should we? At that point, the real decisions are made by those with the most charismatic performance.
What pure democracy assumes is that the competent decision will be more popular.
Eh… maybe not. People can get tricked into voting for stupid policies. California literally voted in a proposition that classify “gig app” (like Uber or Doordash) workers as “Independent Contractors” rather than “Employees”, because of a lot of propaganda.
Maybe he didn’t? Power was on in parliament entire time, internet wasn’t cut off, no curfew, no news stations takeover, you know things you can expect in a coup didn’t happen
My Uneducated Assumption as a non- South Korean: (Correct me if I’m wrong)
He probably would’ve end up jailed anyways because there would be infighting within the military about whether to listen to the president or recognize the legislature that had just revoked martial law.
The supreme court would also side with the legislature and declare that the martial law was unlawful. (The supreme court also unanimously convicted a former president of impeachment)
2 Branches vs 1 person would make the president’s order seem less legitimate.
There would also be mass protests and maybe even riots.
The president’s approval rating is low. There would be a lot of protesters. It would be chaos.
I assume he just wanted to give up and hope for a lighter sentence.
Knowing nothing about anything it almost seems like the mindset of a person who survives a suicide attempt where they realize the gravity of their decision only after they make it
