Justice or Ideology? South Korea’s Endless Tug-of-War

By B.C. Lee, Esq.

Today, the Seoul Central District Court acquitted Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the Democratic Party, on charges of inciting perjury. Outside the courthouse in Seocho-dong, Democratic supporters hailed the ruling as a "victory for judicial fairness," while People Power Party (PPP) supporters denounced it as a product of "leftist bias," even resorting to inflammatory slurs.

The scene stood in stark contrast to events just a week earlier. The same court sentenced Lee to one year in prison, suspended for two years, for spreading false information during his campaign—a verdict tantamount to political death. Should the sentence be upheld, Lee would lose his parliamentary seat and face a five-year ban from running for public office, eliminating him as a contender for the 2027 presidential race.

On that day, Democratic supporters vilified the presiding judge as a "tool of Yoon Suk-yeol’s authoritarian regime," while PPP supporters lauded the decision as "divinely inspired" justice. The ideological divide could not have been starker.

To progressives and conservatives alike, favorable rulings signify the triumph of the rule of law, while adverse outcomes symbolize democracy’s demise. Both camps, however, define "democracy" and "justice" not by universal principles but by their alignment with partisan interests. Their version of democracy serves only their own "camps."

In South Korea’s political theater, the real battle is not between "leftist socialism" and "right-wing liberal democracy." It is a clash of leftist and rightist "factional democracy," where ideology is a distant second to tribal loyalty.

Neither side seems to understand, let alone embody, the principles of socialism or capitalism, proletarian democracy or liberal democracy. Their rhetoric is devoid of substance, relying instead on mutual condemnation.

Under the Moon Jae-in administration, prosecutors were unleashed like hunting dogs, imprisoning hundreds of Park Geun-hye’s allies. Progressives then celebrated this as a victory for democracy and the rule of law. In hindsight, it was neither—it was prosecutorial despotism dressed in the guise of justice.

Now, the administration born out of Moon’s legacy, that of Yoon Suk Yeol, has turned the tables. Prosecutors are targeting Lee Jae-myung and other Democratic Party figures, curbing their political freedoms. Conservatives cheer, claiming justice has been served. Yet, this too is a clear case of prosecutorial tyranny—this time wielded by the right.

Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin envisioned the "dictatorship of the proletariat," rejecting so-called liberal democracy as mere bourgeois tyranny. To them, proletarian rule—where only the working class has freedom—was the true democracy.

In Mao Zedong’s China, where the proletariat was a minority, he expanded this concept to "people’s democratic dictatorship." Mao argued that workers and peasants, united under the "people," must suppress capitalist elements through revolution. Democracy, in this framework, existed solely for the "people," while class enemies faced harsh dictatorship.

For communists, freedom was never for all; it was reserved for those within their ideological fold. Similarly, South Korea’s left and right factions practice a "camp democracy," offering freedom and justice only to their loyalists.

This week, I reflected on a famous quote often misattributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I concluded: "I do not agree with Lee Jae-myung’s views, but I will fight to the death to defend his political freedom."

But after witnessing the rallies in Seocho-dong, I was reminded of Alexis de Tocqueville’s insight: "In every democracy, the people get the government they deserve." South Korea’s political landscape is a testament to this. Roughly 30% of the country aligns with a progressive "camp democracy," while another 30% supports its conservative counterpart.

How different is South Korea’s "camp democracy" from the "people’s democracy" of North Korea and China? Mao’s Red Guards executed perceived class enemies in kangaroo courts, just as South Korea’s courts, influenced by political agendas, become battlegrounds for factional supremacy.

Both systems, in essence, are dictatorships—not the liberal democracy South Korea claims to uphold. Until the nation transcends factionalism, the ideal of democracy will remain a convenient façade, obscuring a perpetual cycle of authoritarianism.