[Polarization and Korean Democracy Series] ② Perceptions of the Causes of Emergency Martial Law and Attitudes Toward Institutional Reform

I. Introduction

Following President Yoon Suk-yeol's declaration of emergency martial law and subsequent impeachment trial, South Korean society once again finds itself at the center of political upheaval. In the aftermath of such extreme events, the necessity of institutional reform, including constitutional amendment, is being discussed anew. However, the demands for institutional reform may differ depending on how the current situation is interpreted, as they are not stemming from critiques of democratic principles or institutional flaws but are rather triggered by the political shock of martial law.

This study aims to analyze how the political shock of emergency martial law structures citizens' demands for institutional reform. To this end, the study will examine the characteristics of perceptions regarding the causes of martial law and explore their relationship with demands for constitutional amendment and National Assembly reform. It will also investigate whether citizens perceive this martial law incident as a problem attributable to the president personally or as an issue requiring institutional reform. If martial law is an event that exposed fundamental problems in the Korean political system, what institutional reforms do citizens feel are necessary now, and within what political context are these perceptions being formed? By exploring these questions, we can identify the conditions and limitations for the current discussions on institutional reform to lead to substantive democratic development.

II. Data Analysis

1. Analysis of Perceptions of Emergency Martial Law and Its Causes

The declaration of martial law was an extreme attempt to resolve political conflicts and confrontations through emergency measures involving force, rather than dialogue and compromise. The president's actions, which severely threatened liberal democracy and the rule of law, led to an impeachment motion by the National Assembly. However, some citizens showed support for the president's assertion that martial law was an unavoidable measure to protect the nation from 'anti-state forces' and to counter the opposition parties' 'legislative dictatorship.' Survey results, however, indicate that positive evaluations of the president's declaration of martial law appear to be a minority view. In this survey, 72.7% of respondents answered that the declaration of emergency martial law was wrong, with 58% stating it was 'very wrong.' Conversely, only 14.1% responded that it was right. This suggests that an absolute majority holds a negative opinion of President Yoon Suk-yeol's declaration of martial law.

Examining citizens' attitudes toward the justification logic for martial law in this survey, 69.4% of respondents opposed the assertion that emergency martial law was an 'unavoidable measure for national security and maintaining order.' However, for the assertion that it was an 'unavoidable response to the opposition parties' uncooperative attitude,' the proportion of opponents decreased to 62.8%. Approximately 20% to 26% agreed with both questions, and 12.1% responded 'very much so' to the second question, indicating a relatively significant proportion of strong agreement. Regarding the assertion that martial law was a 'measure to maintain the president's personal power,' 35.8% opposed it, while 52.8% agreed, with 21.5% responding 'not at all.'

Looking at the responses to the three questions, respondents are generally critical of the reasons for declaring martial law, with only about 10-20% agreeing on its inevitability. Analyzing the interpretation of martial law based on party support and ideological orientation revealed partisan characteristics. Considering the scale of the questions from 1 to 10 (higher score indicates stronger agreement), the average scores for each group showed a particular contrast between supporters of the Democratic Party of Korea/Jo Guk Innovation Party and supporters of the People Power Party, as well as between progressives and conservatives. This was especially pronounced when martial law was considered 'checks on the opposition party' and also clearly contrasted when viewed as a measure 'to maintain the president's personal power.'

Meanwhile, supporters of the Democratic Party of Korea, Jo Guk Innovation Party, and the New Reform Party converged on strongly opposing martial law across the three questions. In contrast, the responses of People Power Party supporters showed a relatively wide distribution of opinions regarding the justification for martial law. For example, 82.0% of Democratic Party supporters chose 'not at all' for the assertion that martial law was an unavoidable response to the opposition party, with less than 2% choosing scores of 4 or higher. In contrast, among People Power Party supporters, 14.12% chose scores of 4 or lower, while 64.9% chose scores of 7 or higher, with 35.17% choosing 'strongly agree.' The range of intra-party disagreement regarding this martial law declaration was wider among People Power Party supporters compared to the Democratic Party. However, overall, the variable of party support had a clear influence on the interpretation of this martial law.

Perceptions of the causes of martial law could also be examined through perceptions of democracy. This survey asked about satisfaction with democracy in Korea, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. Related to democracy, attitudes toward checks on the National Assembly were assessed with the question, 'If the government is continuously checked (i.e., monitored and supervised) by the legislature, it is impossible to achieve great things.' Questions about the rule of law in general and emergency situations were also asked: 'The most important thing for a political leader is to achieve their goals, and it is acceptable to disregard existing procedures to do so,' and 'When the nation faces difficult situations, it is acceptable for the government to disregard laws to resolve the situation.'

Analysis revealed that perceptions of democracy showed statistically significant correlations with perceptions of the causes of martial law. As satisfaction with democracy increased, opposition to the justification logic for martial law strengthened, and critical consciousness toward martial law intensified. Those who believed that checks on the National Assembly could hinder the president's state administration were more likely to agree with the justification of martial law. Notably, the strong correlation between criticism of National Assembly powers and justification for martial law indicates that criticism of National Assembly powers can be relatively easily combined with arguments for strengthening presidential power. As perceptions that procedures or laws can be disregarded in general or emergency situations strengthened, a linear relationship with the perception that martial law was an unavoidable measure also strengthened.

An OLS regression analysis was conducted by including perceptions of the causes of martial law, along with attitudes toward democracy, party support, ideological orientation, age, and gender. The analysis showed that satisfaction with democracy weakened the justification for national security and order maintenance, and opposition to the opposition party, but did not have a significant impact on the logic of maintaining presidential power. A critical attitude toward checks by the National Assembly had a consistent positive impact on all three justification logics for martial law, particularly strong in the logic of national security and order maintenance and maintaining presidential power.

Preference for democracy variables showed a significant impact in strengthening the attitude of justifying martial law as a check on the opposition party for those who always prefer democracy versus those who prefer dictatorship depending on the situation. Specifically, those who responded that they could selectively adhere to the rule of law in emergency situations showed a higher likelihood of agreeing with the justification logic for martial law. Ideological orientation and party support also influenced the justification logic for martial law. These results indicate that the justification logic for martial law is closely linked not only to attitudes toward democracy but also to partisan preferences and critical attitudes toward the National Assembly.

II. Demands for Institutional Reform

1. Attitudes Toward Institutional Reform

Regarding the question, 'What do you think about constitutional amendment to change the current presidential system?', 53.1% of all respondents answered that constitutional amendment is necessary. This exceeded the 29.5% who responded that the current system should be maintained. However, based solely on this figure, it may be difficult to assess support for constitutional amendment as an absolute majority, as fundamental changes to the constitutional order like constitutional amendment gain momentum with broader societal consensus. (However, 63.8% of respondents who believed constitutional amendment was necessary also stated there was no need to rush it.)

As institutional reform is a specialized issue, there were many 'don't know' responses, particularly among independents and moderates. However, divisions in opinion were observed among those with party affiliation or identifying as progressive/conservative. Over 60% of opposition party supporters felt the necessity of amending the presidential system. The fact that a majority of Democratic Party supporters favor constitutional amendment aligns with the situation where, despite the party leadership's somewhat passive stance on constitutional amendment discussions, demands for it exist within the party. In contrast, among People Power Party supporters, a slight majority responded that the current system should be maintained. While the political forces actively pursuing constitutional amendment in the current impeachment situation are on the People Power Party's side, the lack of consensus among their supporters suggests that the People Power Party leadership's momentum for constitutional amendment may not be sustained (Kim Hyung-won 2025).

Regarding the specific direction of institutional reform, opinions were sought on how to adjust the scope of presidential power. The largest group, 43.6%, responded that presidential power should be dispersed because it is too strong. Conversely, 36.7% of respondents believed the president holds an appropriate level of power, and 11.4% thought the president's power was actually weak. This differs somewhat from the common perception that the Korean president's power should be weakened, as the latter two proportions combined (48.1%) exceed the proportion of respondents who answered that power dispersion is necessary.

Furthermore, the survey results indicate that perceptions of presidential power and reform direction are divided along partisan and ideological lines. First, among People Power Party supporters, the most common opinion was that the status quo should be maintained, and a quarter believed presidential power was weak. The fact that many supporters responded that presidential power should be strengthened may reflect the perception that the opposition party's checks were excessive, despite the president's declaration of martial law, and the perception of the current situation where the president is undergoing an impeachment trial. This suggests a division within the People Power Party regarding presidential system reform, which may align with the People Power Party leadership's emphasis on the conflict between the president and the National Assembly rather than solely on the adjustment of presidential power. It was also noteworthy that a considerable proportion (around 30%) of opposition party supporters or progressive and moderate respondents were satisfied with the current presidential system. Nevertheless, a majority of opposition party supporters and those with progressive leanings responded that presidential power dispersion is necessary.

What about attitudes toward National Assembly reform? 64.7% of all respondents agreed on the necessity of reforming the National Assembly election system. This is a higher proportion than those who agreed on the necessity of constitutional amendment for presidential system reform or adjustment of presidential power. When divided by party support, a majority of supporters of parties other than the Democratic Party of Korea, which currently holds an absolute majority of seats in the National Assembly, expressed strong dissatisfaction with the current party competition system. Even among the Democratic Party, while the opinion that change is necessary was most common, a significant proportion also held the opinion that the current system should be maintained. The group with the highest dissatisfaction with the current National Assembly was People Power Party supporters. This attitude can be seen as reflecting structural dissatisfaction with the current composition of the National Assembly, which has led to martial law and impeachment amidst confrontation with the major opposition party.

[Table 6]

2. Perceptions of the Causes of Martial Law and Demands for Institutional Reform

How is the degree of agreement with each cause of martial law related to demands for institutional reform? If martial law is interpreted as a measure to maintain or strengthen the president's personal power, then checks or dispersion of power to prevent the abuse of presidential power would be deemed necessary. Conversely, if martial law is interpreted as a response to the opposition party's uncooperativeness, then reforms to change the National Assembly's power to check the president or the current power structure of the National Assembly might be preferred. In other words, different demands for institutional reform can be formed depending on citizens' interpretations of the martial law incident.

Analysis results show a strong correlation between how martial law is perceived and the direction of presidential system reform. As agreement with the assertion that emergency martial law was an unavoidable response to the opposition party strengthened, the proportion favoring strengthening presidential power increased compared to the proportion favoring dispersing presidential power. Conversely, those who disagreed with this assertion demanded reforms to disperse the president's strong power. Since 47.2% of the total respondents chose 'not at all' for this question, the demand for power dispersion can be seen as significantly stronger. However, the strong preferences of a minority who chose 'strongly agree' cannot be ignored. In fact, when agreeing with this question, the most common opinion was that the current presidential system should be maintained. This could reflect the perception that the level of presidential power that enabled the declaration of martial law is appropriate, or it could reflect the perception that the cause of the current situation does not lie with the president.

[Figure 4] Degree of Agreement with "Martial law was an unavoidable response to the opposition party's uncooperative attitude" and Attitudes Toward Presidential System Reform

[Figure 5] Degree of Agreement with "Martial law was a measure to maintain the president's personal power" and Attitudes Toward Presidential System Reform

Symmetrically, as agreement with the assertion that emergency martial law was for maintaining presidential power increased, the proportion of respondents who answered that measures for power dispersion are necessary tended to increase. This trend demonstrates the self-evident logic that the more one believes martial law was an abuse of presidential power, the more one demands reforms for power dispersion. Furthermore, this analysis can be interpreted as indicating a tendency to view the abuse of presidential power during the martial law incident not merely as an individual problem of Yoon Suk-yeol but as a structural issue requiring institutional reform. However, if one agrees that martial law was for maintaining presidential power but the degree of agreement is weak, the preference for reforms to reduce presidential power falls below 50%, and the demand for maintaining the current system strengthens. Additionally, when one disagrees that martial law was for maintaining presidential power, the proportion favoring strengthening presidential power increases.

Regarding the reform of the National Assembly election system, a clear increase in the proportion of respondents who thought reform was necessary was observed as the tendency to view martial law as a response to the opposition party strengthened. Conversely, as the opinion that martial law was an abuse of presidential power strengthened, the opinion that reform of the National Assembly election system was necessary weakened, although the demand for National Assembly reform remained close to 60% even in this case. Interestingly, when comparing the demands for presidential system reform and National Assembly election system reform, those who viewed martial law as an unavoidable declaration due to the opposition party tended to assess the level of presidential power as appropriate while strongly demanding reform of the National Assembly election system. Particularly, when strongly agreeing with this question (scores of 9-10), the demand for National Assembly reform became overwhelmingly strong.

[Figure 6] Degree of Agreement with "Martial law was an unavoidable response to the opposition party's uncooperative attitude" and the Degree to Which Reform of the National Assembly Election System Was Deemed Necessary

[Figure 7] Degree of Agreement with "Martial law was a measure to maintain the president's personal power" and the Degree to Which Reform of the National Assembly Election System Was Deemed Necessary

This point is somewhat concerning, as it may suggest a bias in reform demands, focusing solely on the uncooperative attitude of the opposition party rather than adequately addressing the inherent issues of institutional flaws and abuse of power, even after experiencing martial law, an exceptional emergency measure stemming from presidential extremism. This implies a possibility that reform demands based on partisan interests may be overrepresented, without sufficiently illuminating the fundamental issues of institutional flaws and abuse of power. In particular, if discourse demanding only National Assembly reform expands, there is a concern that discussions for fundamental reforms to check the abuse of presidential power or strengthen democratic procedures may be relatively weakened.

To systematically analyze the direction of reform demands and the factors shaping them, a multinomial logistic regression analysis was conducted, including perceptions of the causes of martial law as independent variables, along with attitudes toward democracy (satisfaction with democracy, attitudes toward the rule of law, etc.).

The analysis results showed that perceptions of the causes of martial law had a significant impact on perceptions of presidential system reform. Those who believed martial law was a measure for national security and order maintenance were more likely to support strengthening presidential power. Those who believed martial law was a check on the opposition party also supported strengthening presidential power. Conversely, those who believed martial law was a measure to maintain presidential power were more likely to prefer weakening presidential power, which was statistically significant. Whether one prefers dictatorship depending on the situation also showed a tendency to favor strengthening presidential power compared to respondents who always prefer democracy. Agreement with the possibility of violating the rule of law in general and emergency situations increased the likelihood of supporting the strengthening of presidential power. Party support had a relatively weaker influence, while the influence of ideological orientation and age was clearly observed.

Attitudes toward the reform of the National Assembly election system were also analyzed using a multinomial logistic model. The results showed that among perceptions of the causes of martial law, believing martial law was a measure to check the opposition party increased the likelihood of responding that reform of the National Assembly election system is necessary. Conversely, as satisfaction with democracy decreased, the likelihood of supporting election system reform significantly increased. On the other hand, those who prefer dictatorship depending on the situation were more likely to believe that reform of the National Assembly election system is not necessary. Those critical of checks by the National Assembly were more likely to believe that reform of the National Assembly election system is necessary. Democratic Party support, ideological orientation, age, and gender also had additional influences. Considering the previous discussion, and acknowledging that perceptions of the causes of martial law influence perceptions of democracy, it can be considered that perceptions of the causes of martial law act as a mediating variable, influencing attitudes toward reform through perceptions of democracy.

III. Conclusion

This paper analyzed how the extreme political event of emergency martial law can be linked to citizens' demands for institutional reform. The analysis revealed, first, that while opinions favoring the necessity of constitutional amendment, which is currently actively discussed, were dominant, it is difficult to consider this as absolute support. For discussions on constitutional amendment to be effective, broader consensus on the necessity of institutional reform needs to be formed. Among People Power Party supporters, maintaining the current system (45.5%) was slightly higher than constitutional amendment necessity (43.1%), indicating a gap between the People Power Party leadership, which is actively pursuing constitutional amendment, and its supporters.

In the analysis of how perceptions of the causes of martial law structure demands for institutional reform, a pattern was found where those who perceived the martial law incident as an abuse of presidential personal power tended to demand presidential power dispersion, while conversely, those who perceived it as an unavoidable response to the opposition party's uncooperativeness emphasized reform of the National Assembly election system. These results show that the interpretation of the causes of martial law is closely linked to the two reform directions: presidential system reform and National Assembly reform.

The findings of this study offer implications for what needs to be considered for the discussions on institutional reform in the current martial law and impeachment situation to proceed in a direction of substantive democratic improvement. The justification logic for martial law did not merely reflect individual differences in opinion regarding the matter but also reflected underlying attitudes toward democracy. It was also strongly linked to political identity (party support, ideological orientation), which in turn influenced the direction of demands for presidential system reform and National Assembly reform. In particular, although extreme opinions agreeing with the justification of martial law were a minority overall, if such opinions are overrepresented and highlighted in political discourse, as in the current political climate, they can exert significant pressure on the policy direction or strategic choices of specific parties. This suggests the possibility that parties may readjust policies or adopt stronger stances in response to the demands of extreme supporters, potentially undermining the balance of discussions on institutional reform in the long term and negatively impacting the fundamental principles and direction of democracy.

Given this situation, it is concerning that discussions on institutional reform may not proceed in a balanced manner if demands for National Assembly reform are pursued without considering adjustments to presidential power, or even combined with the logic of strengthening presidential power. Presidential system reform and National Assembly election system reform are significant institutional reforms that require coherence within a larger framework. However, as the logic advocating for reduced presidential power by framing the issue as abuse of presidential power clashes with the logic emphasizing opposition party responsibility and demanding National Assembly reform, reform discussions may be strategically mobilized based on partisan interests (Kim Min-gyu 2025).

Consequently, the findings of this analysis demonstrate that for discussions on institutional reform following the martial law incident to lead to substantive reforms for strengthening democracy, the formation of reform discourse must proceed in a direction that prioritizes democratic values, and care must be taken to avoid excessive influence from partisan confrontation.■

IV. References

Kim Min-gyu. 2025. “[Special Feature] Constitutional Amendment Debate Ignited by Some Political Circles Has Feasibility.” <Sisa Focus> February 4.

Kim Hyung-won. 2025. “Ruling Party to 'Present Constitutional Amendment Bill,' Opposition Also Says 'Amendment Necessary'... Lee Remains Silent.” <Chosun Ilbo> February 6.

■ Seong Ye-jin, Senior Researcher, Good Democracy Research Center, Sungkyunkwan University.

■ Managed and Edited by: Song Chae-rin, EAI Researcher

Inquiries and Editing: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 211) | crsong@eai.or.kr