Court verdict against Yoon reminiscent of ‘communist’ North Korea: Kim Moon-soo

Conservative South Korean presidential candidate Kim Moon-soo on Thursday condemned the unanimous impeachment verdict against former President Yoon Suk-yeol as reminiscent of “communist” North Korea, a framing one expert described as “dangerous” rhetoric that casts doubt on his respect for the law.

Addressing a press conference at Seoul’s National Assembly, Kim framed the Constitutional Court’s decision last month to uphold Yoon’s impeachment over his controversial martial law declaration — as well as the unanimous ruling against former President Park Geun-hye in 2017 — as out of tune with the spirit of democracy.

“Unanimous decisions like that are common in communist states like [North Korea under] Kim Jong Un or [China under] Xi Jinping,” the ruling People Power Party’s candidate said.

Affirming his belief in the ROK as “a great liberal democracy,” he warned that a court that fails to reflect diverse perspectives poses a threat to the country’s democratic values.

The condemnation of South Korea’s judiciary by the labor activist-turned-hardline conservative politician appears designed to appeal to pro-Yoon, right-wing voters and echoes the rhetoric of the far-right, evangelical Liberal Unification Party, which branded the ruling as a “communist declaration” last month.

However, his likening of the verdict on Yoon to the North Korean regime’s authoritarian ways makes for “a very poor comparison,” according to Benjamin Engel, a visiting professor at Dankook University.

“Sometimes legal issues are so clear that judges are able to come to a consensus, even if the issue at hand is very political,” he said, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling last year that states could not remove Donald Trump from the presidential ballot.

In addition, North Korean leaders effectively rule for life, and there is no practical mechanism for their removal from power as in democratic states like South Korea, which has seen three presidents impeached and two removed from office.

In its ruling last month, South Korea’s Constitutional Court emphatically rejected Yoon’s arguments justifying his martial law declaration on Dec. 3 as a necessary move to battle “pro-North” and “anti-state” forces in the opposition.

“By declaring martial law in this case in violation of the Constitution and laws, the respondent recreated the history of abuse of state emergency powers, shocking the people and causing chaos in all areas including society, economy, politics, diplomacy and in general,” the eight-judge bench stated after weeks of deliberation.

The court condemned Yoon’s “unconstitutional and unlawful acts” — including dispatching troops to the National Assembly and National Election Commission — as a serious violation of South Korean law and a move that “severely endangered the stability of the democratic republic.” 

While Kim was eager to condemn the court’s verdict as contrary to liberal democratic values, he was not as strong in his condemnation of Yoon’s martial law imposition as he expressed regret on Thursday for the declaration, his second apology this week after more than five months of silence.

“To all the people who suffered … I offer my sincerest and most respectful apology,” he said.

The conservative presidential candidate, who served as labor minister under Yoon, said that declaring martial law without a national emergency was “inappropriate,” even if it was “an authority granted under the Constitution.”

“Had I known in advance, I would have clearly advised the president against it,” he stressed.

Despite Kim’s attempts to distance himself from Yoon’s actions, Engel said his “previous refusal to apologize” for the martial law crisis and his attack on the judiciary signal a “dangerous” direction for Seoul if he defeats the heavily favored Lee Jae-myung in next month’s presidential election.

“It suggests he views declaring martial law without proper justification as demanded by the Korean Constitution as a valid decision, causing concern that he may be willing to do it himself, and his comments against the Constitutional Court call into question his adherence to the principle of rule of law,” he said.

Edited by Alannah Hill