Institutions and Path to Democratic Control of the Military in South Korea: A Research Note

Abstract

In 2024, South Korea once again found itself at the center of a political controversy, where a democratically elected president, the military, and the legislature engaged in partisan domestic conflict. This episode culminated in the president’s declaration of martial law and the deployment of troops to neutralize the National Assembly. This study raises the question of why the South Korean military continues to exhibit behavior reminiscent of authoritarian rule within a democratic framework. By employing historical institutional analysis, it meticulously reveals how institutional legacies—such as the institutionalization of patronage networks, legal codes governing obedience, and cultural norms—that were established during the authoritarian era have persisted even after democratization. In the South Korean case, the 2024 martial law incident was a product of these deeply embedded institutional legacies rather than a temporary deviation.

Keywords

South Korea martial law historical institutional analysis path dependency habitus

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bourdieu

(1990). The logic of practice. Stanford University Press.

Cho

(1998). Regionalism in Korean elections and democratization: An empirical analysis. Asian Perspective, 22(1), 135–156. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42704159

Feaver

P. D.

(2003). Armed servants: Agency, oversight, and civil-military relations. Harvard University Press.

Finer

S. E.

(1962). The man on the horseback: The role of the military in politics. Pall Mall Press.

Fukuyama

(1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. Free Press.

Greif

(2006). Institutions and the path to the modern economy. Cambridge University Press.

Guttieri

(2006). Professional military education in democracies. In Bruneau

T. C.

Tollefson

S. D.

(Eds.), Who guards the guardians and how: Democratic civil-military relations (pp. 235–262). University of Texas Press.

Huntington

S. P.

(1957). The soldier and the state: The theory and politics of civil-military relations. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Huntington

S. P.

(1991). The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century. The University of Oklahoma Press.

10.

Huntington

S. P.

(1996). Reforming civil-military relations. In Diamond

Plattner

M. F.

(Eds.), Civil-military relations and democracy (pp. 3–11). The Johns Hopkins University Press.

11.

Johnson

J. J.

(Ed.) (1962). The role of the military in underdeveloped countries. Princeton University Press.

12.

Jun

(2001). South Korea: Consolidating democratic civilian control. In Alagappa

(Ed.), Coercion and governance: The declining political role of the military in Asia (pp. 121–142). Stanford University Press.

13.

Jung

(2023). Bureaucrats and budget in South Korea: Evidence for hometown favoritism. Journal of East Asian Studies, 23(2), 205–239.

14.

Kemp

K. W.

Hudlin

(1992). Civil supremacy over the military: Its nature and limits. Armed Forces & Society, 19(1), 7–26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45346480

15.

Kim

(2001). Crony capitalism in South Korea, Thailand and Taiwan: Myth and reality. Journal of East Asian Studies, 1(1), 5–52. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23417862

16.

Kim

(1998). Change and continuity in Korean political culture: An overview. International Journal of Korean Studies, 2(1), 100–120. https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/journals/ijoks/v2i1/f_0013364_10860.pdf

17.

Kim

(2013). Intra-military divisions and democratization in South Korea. Armed Forces & Society, 39(4), 695–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X12454533

18.

Kim

(2014). Collective identity and promotion prospects in the South Korean Army. Armed Forces & Society, 40(2), 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X12466037

19.

Krupski

K. F.

(2023). Who’s the boss? Defining the civil-military relationship in the twenty-first century. Military Review. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/January-February-2023/Krupski/

20.

Kwon

(2004). Regionalism in South Korea: Its origins and role in her democratization. Politics & Society, 32(4), 545–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329204269982

21.

Lee

Repkine

(2000). Changes in and continuity of regionalism in South Korea. Asian Survey, 60(2), 417–440. https://doi.org/10.1525/as.2020.60.3.417

22.

Mahoney

(2001) The legacies of liberalism: Path dependence and political regimes in Central America. Johns Hopkins University Press.