[Insight & Opinion] Martial Law and the Ruling Party’s Strategy: A Dangerous Political Game

Han Faces Conflict with President and Pro-Yoon Faction
A Multilayered Dilemma Demands a Decisive Choice
A Major Turning Point in South Korea’s Political Landscape

On December 3rd, a state of emergency was declared. This was the first martial law imposed since 1980 in modern history, sparking significant controversy both domestically and internationally. The president described this measure as an "inevitable choice to protect the constitution" due to the National Assembly's continuous impeachment attempts and delays in budget approval causing paralysis in state affairs. However, to the public, it represents a "major crisis for democracy." From the perspectives of legitimacy and democratic principles, this action is clearly an irreversible mistake.

The political context of the martial law is not simple. President Yoon attempted to suppress opposition forces and restore government functions through an extreme hardline approach but faced public backlash and international criticism. Although the strategy aimed to consolidate conservative support, any scheme that goes against the natural order is bound to fail. This situation is politically complex, intertwined with the actions of the ruling party leader. Amid intense conflict, we examine all these circumstances from the viewpoint of game theory.

Leader Han Dong-hoon has maintained a cooperative stance toward President Yoon’s policies but recently has distanced himself somewhat to strengthen his independent position. Especially after the martial law declaration, he took a critical stance on President Yoon’s hardline measures and hinted at possible cooperation with opposition parties, showing efforts to build political bridges. From a game theory perspective, this is an attempt to form new alliances and expand strategic options. The political interactions among President Yoon’s camp, Leader Han, and the opposition can be summarized in the following scenarios.

First, the statements by Leader Han and Prime Minister Han Deok-su, along with conflicts with pro-Yoon factions, have made the political dynamics even more complicated. The pro-Yoon camp still aims to consolidate the core conservative base while checking potential rivals. Meanwhile, Leader Han emphasizes independent leadership, securing political space through his statements on the Han Dong-hoon and Han Deok-su discourse, and seeks to capture public opinion dissatisfied with President Yoon’s hardline approach. All these actors prefer to hold the reins of state power by leveraging the president rather than pursuing impeachment.

This structure is effectively a zero-sum game without synergy. The more the pro-Yoon faction solidifies power, the narrower Leader Han’s position becomes, and vice versa. The intensified conflict between these two forces also aims to prevent the rise of opposition leader Lee Jae-myung. On the other hand, Leader Han could explore strategic alliances with the opposition, but considering past instances where the conservative camp’s coalition with progressives damaged long-term trust, the risks are significant. Furthermore, there is a possibility of tacit alliances between the pro-Yoon camp and the opposition. Historically, ruling parties have covertly cooperated with opposition forces to check potential rivals; similarly, the pro-Yoon faction might adopt strategies to isolate Leader Han, such as impeaching Prime Minister Han.

Ultimately, Leader Han faces a multilayered dilemma involving conflict with the president, cooperation with the opposition, and the potential pro-Yoon?opposition alliance, requiring a political decision soon. These moves will be choices where risks and opportunities intersect amid an uncertain political landscape. However, before all are politicians vying for power, they must not forget their shared responsibility to ensure public safety and minimize national turmoil.

This incident marks a significant turning point in Korean politics. While the current situation heightens political tension, it is likely to form new political alliances and exclusionary patterns in the long term. Politicians may be more concerned about the ripple effects of their strategies, but from the perspective of our citizens, worries about how these conflicts will impact national stability inevitably come first.

Professor Kim Gyu-il, Michigan State University