Last week, South Korea experienced a titanic political shift when President Yoon Suk-yeol imposed martial law late on Tuesday night. The move lasted just over six hours before it was lifted, making it one of the shortest-lived martial law declarations in modern political history. It was lucky because it started late at night and ended early in the morning. Had it occurred during the day, the outcome could have been very different.
While it may be easy to criticise such actions from the outside, as the global media have done, Thailand, with its long history of political malfunction, martial law and coups, should reflect on the lessons from South Korea's situation.
Of late, rumours of another possible coup have hit Thai social media and spread fast. If those rumours are true, Thai leaders can learn a few things from how Korea's military, politicians, and people responded. This extraordinary political blip shows the importance of democratic principles, the role of the military, and the responsibilities of lawmakers in protecting their country's governance.
In South Korea, after martial law was declared, troops were sent to surround the National Assembly and ordered to arrest key lawmakers, according to reports. Their mission was to prevent MPs from entering the building. Lawmakers resisted and tried to enter the parliament to hold a parliamentary session. Remarkably, the soldiers chose to step aside and allow them in. There was limited resistance at first, but then people's power prevailed, and there was no bloodshed.
This act is significant for Thais. Even under martial law, the Korean military respected democratic institutions. The MPs used this critical moment in the early morning to vote on a resolution demanding that Mr Yoon rescind his declaration of martial law. This was a powerful and glorious moment for the country. The military's decision not to interfere further strengthened South Korea's democracy. Subsequently, Defence Minister Kim Yong-hyun, who proposed that Mr Yoon declare martial law, resigned.
In contrast, Thailand's history with martial law tells a different story. Thai coups often lead to the suspension of constitutions, the dissolution of democratic institutions and long periods of military rule. Troops in Thailand have not always acted with the same restraint as their South Korean counterparts. In past coups, the Thai military has often been seen as an enforcer of authoritarian control rather than a protector of democracy.
Even though the top brass were criticised for following orders, South Korean foot soldiers' behaviour during this incident was civilised. Video clips and eyewitness accounts showed that the soldiers, despite being heavily armed, acted calmly and respectfully. They refrained from using force against the MPs or the public.
Thai military leaders should carefully observe and learn from this approach. The Korean military has remade itself into a respectable democratic force after decades with a chequered record. This transformation, to use the Thai parlance, must be the country's greatest soft power. In previous Thai coups, military action and tanks rolling through the capital's streets often caused fear and distrust among citizens. Seoul's example shows that the military can maintain order without snuffing out democracy.
It is worth noting that Thailand and South Korea share a historical military connection dating back to the Korean War. Their troops have also trained together during the Cobra Gold annual military exercise since 1982. However, over the past three decades, their political paths have diverged significantly with dramatic political and economic outcomes. South Korea's military now supports democratic governance, and its economy, which also suffered the same fate as Thailand following the Asian economic crisis in the 1990s, has prospered and become the world's eleventh largest.
Mr Yoon's decision to impose martial law has severely damaged his political career and his country's reputation. Although he acted within his constitutional authority under Article 77, his justification for the move was weak. Mr Yoon claimed that martial law was necessary to address threats from North Korea and to manage ongoing opposition to his government's policies and measures, including numerous impeachments. However, these reasons were not seen as valid threats to national security.
Most importantly, when South Korea's lawmakers and the public opposed his decision, Mr Yoon reversed course. He lifted martial law within hours, complying with democratic norms despite his earlier actions. A day later, he pledged not to do it again. Unfortunately, his credibility has forever vanished. In addition, with the outpouring of public anger and a heightened sense of betrayal by their elected leader, it will be tough for Mr Yoon to stay in office.
In contrast, when Thai leaders declare martial law, they tend to stay on for extended periods to achieve their objectives. Quite often, during the beginning of martial law, public voices are silenced and oppressed.
Another notable lesson is the courage and quality of South Korean MPs, who showed remarkable resilience and bravery during this crisis. Opposition lawmakers insisted on entering the National Assembly to carry out their duties, even when soldiers initially blocked them. With a resolution against martial law passed, the crisis effectively ended.
This contrasts with the behaviour of Thai politicians during democratic or dictatorial rule. Some lawmakers and political leaders remain in cahoots with the military or establishment to keep a grip on power as long as they can to protect their interests. That helps explain why, since 1932, following the move from absolute monarchy to constitutional one, Thailand's political development has been third rate with weak democratic institutions and civil society organisations. Thai politicians are elected to safeguard national interests and democracy but they instead choose to protect their interests, which are subjects of new headlines and judicial investigations.
Finally, Mr Yoon's justification for declaring martial law was claimed to be against the perceived threat from communist North Korea. This is not entirely new. After the Korean War, South Korea has often cited national security concerns emanating from the North in its political decisions. However, this time round, numerous Korean scholars and critics agreed that Mr Yoon's real motivation was to block the opposition from obstructing his government's proposed bills and policies and to shield his wife from political persecution.
Thailand has seen similar patterns in its long list of martial law declarations. During the Cold War, the communist threat ranked high in the military's psyche. In 1976, it led to the massacre of students at Thammasat University. Furthermore, the military used additional reasons, such as corruption, inefficiency and national security threats, to impose martial law.
Today, after the May 2014 coup, it is now hoped that the Thai public will no longer tolerate military rule again as it yields more destructive than positive impacts.
South Korea's mature and functioning democracy, albeit a bit bruised by last week's martial law invocation, can still withstand manipulation by crooked politicians and military power. Thailand should take note.