AT PENPOINT
The imposition of martial law by South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol may have had to be withdrawn, but it was not only a reversion to a past for that country, but it also has some uncanny similarities with Pakistan’s own first Martial Law in 1958. Also, it has a similarity with the 2016 coup attempt in Turkiye in that it was a coup attempt in a country which had experienced long periods of military rule, but which had been having regular elections for some time.
It was also something of a repeat of the 1968 Pakistani model, where a civilian President imposes Martial Law, and appoints the commander-in-chief as head of the government. That takeover by two people can be seen in Egypt in 1952, when Maj Gen Muhammad Naguib and Col Gmal Abdel Nasser jointly led the Free Officers in overthrowing King Farouk and the government. However, it did not last, and by 1954, after Naguib became Egypt’s first President, he was made to resign and Nasser took over.
That is strikingly similar to what happened in Pakistan in 1958, when it was President Iskander Mirza who declared Martial Law, and appointed Gen Ayub Khan, who was both Commander-in-Chief, a post he had held since 1951, and Defence Minister, Chief Martial Law Administrator. However, in two weeks, Ayub made Mirza resign. Mirza, like Naguib, was his country’s first president, but unlike Naguib, was exiled. Naguib was placed under house arrest after he resigned, where he remained until his death in 1984.
It is odd that Mirza had reached the rank of major general, though he had transferred to the Indian Political Service after six years of regimental soldiering in 1926, while still a lieutenant. Naguib had served in the Royal Guard and had commanded the Egyptian mechanized infantry in the Sinai during the 1948 War. At the time of the 1952 coup, he had become a major general, and was commanding the Egyptian Military Academy. The first South Korean coupmaker, Park Chung Hee, was also a major general when he carried out the coup in 1961, being the Director General of Army Operations. He acted alone, though he had to get the Chief of Army Staff on board. The COAS, Gen Chang Do-Yong, whom he first had made chairman of the revolutionary council, but whom he ultimately removed,
Like Pakistan, South Korea had experience of other coups. Park Chung Hee himself was removed by a coup, involving his assassination, in 1979. He was assassinated by the head of the KCIA. However, his Constitution was followed, and the PM Choi Kyuh-ha, became acting President, and then President for the rest of Park’s term. However, the real power lay with Maj Gen Chun Doo Hwan, who was the head of the Army Defence Security Command. Chun was then elected President. He completed a six-year term in 1988, and was replaced by Roh Tae Woo, who had been a major general at the time of the 1979 coup, but who was elected in 1988. It should not be forgotten that the Korean martial law ia constitutionally provided for, and is more like an emergency in Pakistan.
That is why there are two aspects unfamiliar to Pakistani eyes. The first is the possibility of Parliament disapproving the martial law, as happened in this case. When martial law has been declared in Pakistan, even if Parliament was to meet, any resolution it passed would not carry much weight. Under the South Korean Constitution, however, it is binding. It should not be forgotten that the South Korean Constitution provides for martial law; in Pakistan, it is a subversion of the Constitution and thus high treason.
However, the recent episode shows that democracy is still fragile there, much as Pakistan is. Both countries show there is much ground to cover.
Another thing is that the martial law does not invalidate the Constitution. It might be remembered that a declaration of emergency, whether nationally or in a province, in Pakistan can also be invalidated by Parliament. However, it is highly unlikely that this will happen, because the imposition is by the government, which holds office by commanding a majority. In South Korea, on the hand, it is entirely possible that the President (who does the declaring) belongs to one party, and the government belong to another. That is the situation in South Korea at their moment.
As a result, after the President’s declaration, Parliament quickly assembled, and the imposition was disapproved by resolution. The troops that had been detailed to prevent this failed to prevent a quorum assembling.
President Yoon has been abandoned by his party, which would probably not happen in Pakistan, because parties are essentially political vehicles for certain select individuals. It has saved from impeachment, but only because its parliamentarians have agreed that he will step down himself. The COAS has offered to resign, but was told to stay put.
There was pressure on him to resign, and his party won him enough time to do so by abstaining from a no-confidence vote Saturday. However, he faces a fresh vote this weekend. His party may not abstain this time.
President Yoon was doing his best to resist being prosecuted for his action. This is far from what happened in Pakistan in 1958, when there was no question of any prosecution of anyone. Indeed, that was when Chief Justice Muhammad Munir applied Kelsen’s ‘doctrine of necessity’ to the coup. Not only did it mean that the takeover was justified, but the coupmakers were indemnified.
Perhaps pane reason why the coup failed was because the Martial Law Commander was not ready to take over. Kore has had 17 martial laws since the Japanese left it in 1945, and it has included the 1972 Martial Law, which Park Chung Hee declared against his own government, because he wanted to bring in a new constitution, a little like the Emergency imposed by General Musharraf in 2007. However, while in Pakistan, the military stayed loyal to the President, to the extent of ignoring the Supreme Court order declaring the action illegal, the Korean Army did not feel it could ignore the Parliament.
This does not necessarily mean that the Korean forces are democrats. It merely may be that the military does not wish to take sides between two civilian political forces. In defending President Yoon, it would also have seen defending him against the opposition’s charges involving his wife, a businesswoman in her own right, who organizes art exhibitions. She is alleged to have misused her position in this regard.
She thus joins Mrs Imran Khan, whose actions have caused him a great deal of trouble. Whether it be the Al-Qadir reference, the Toshalhana references, or even the iddat case, she is involved. She is more like Mrs Sarah Netnyahu, the wife of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, who is involved in some, but not all, the corruption cases against him.
South Korea was a nation created by a withdrawal, like Pakistan, only it was the Japanese withdrawal from the Korean Peninsula, which was split into South Korea and North Korea. Pakistan was created by the British withdrawal. Both were held close by the USA in the Cold War, and both saw war in their early years. Both have perennial enemies, India and North Korea respectively. Both experienced military takeovers, but then there seems to have been a divergence. In Pakistan, Ayub fell in 1969, in South Korea, Park a decade later.
However, the recent episode shows that democracy is still fragile there, much as Pakistan is. Both countries show there is much ground to cover.
