[[link removed]]

THE REVOLUTION OF LIGHT AND KOREA’S DEMOCRATIC TRIUMPH: WHY
WASHINGTON SHOULD PAY ATTENTION  
[[link removed]]


 

Simone Chun
June 6, 2025
CounterPunch
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Lee’s election marks not just an end to authoritarianism, but
also the dawn of Korea’s democratic revolution. The future of Korea
belongs to its people. _

Participants in a mass march of victory on April 5, 2025, fill the
streets outside Gyeongbok Palace in Seoul, where they celebrate the
Constitutional Court’s ruling to remove Yoon Suk-yeol from office as
president, (Kim Gyoung-ho/Hankyoreh).

 

One of the most consequential missteps in US Korea policy under the
Biden administration was the failure to engage with South Korea’s
domestic political realities, particularly the widespread public
opposition to President Yoon Suk-yeol’s increasingly authoritarian
rule. By relentlessly propping up Yoon to serve Washington’s
geopolitical agenda and its escalating Cold War posture toward China,
the Biden administration not only ignored Korean public sentiment but
also fueled domestic unrest. Domestic outrage against Yoon’s regime
came to a head with his attempted imposition of martial law on
December 3, 2024—a move that exposed the fragility of his position
and deeply damaged Washington’s credibility in the region.

Backing unpopular authoritarian leaders for strategic gain is hardly
new in terms of US foreign policy, but as Korea’s experience shows,
subordinating democratic values to geopolitical priorities carries
real costs. Moving forward, US policymakers–and Western media–must
begin by acknowledging the historic democratic uprising that put an
end to Yoon’s martial law and led to the election of Lee Jae-myung
on June 3. His presidency reflects a clear popular mandate that
Washington can hardly afford to ignore.

The historic disconnect between US policymakers and Korean popular
democratic sentiment was made painfully clear during last week’s
White House press briefing, when Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt
[[link removed]] was
asked whether the administration had a  response to South Korea’s
historic election. “Yes, we do!” Then, flipping through her notes,
she hesitated and admitted, “Um, we do not… but I will get you
one.” That pause said it all: the United States had no prepared
remarks on one of the most significant democratic movements in East
Asia in decades. When a response finally arrived, it fell short of the
moment. And the White House briefly called the election “fair
[[link removed]]” before pivoting to
vague claims of Chinese interference
[[link removed]] in
democracies worldwide. There was no mention of Yoon’s illegal
martial law declaration, of the tanks in the streets, or the millions
who stood unarmed to defend their democracy. 

Rather than honoring Korea’s democratic achievement, the official
statement simply reaffirmed the US-ROK “ironclad alliance,”
emphasized trilateral military ties with Japan, and invoked
boilerplate references to “shared democratic values.” For many
Koreans, this rang hollow—especially given the Biden
administration’s quiet backing of a regime that had nearly
dismantled those very principles. Across the Pacific, Korea’s
Revolution of Light was met not with solidarity, but with strategic
discomfort, silence, and at times, what felt like dismissal or even
contempt. While millions of Koreans rose to defend and reclaim their
democracy, Washington remained entangled in the rhetoric of power
politics—issuing statements that conveyed, at best, indifference,
and at worst, implicit threats. Veteran journalist Tim Shorrock
[[link removed]], who has covered
Korea for over 30 years and helped expose US complicity in the
suppression of the 1980 Gwangju Democratic Uprising, went so far as to
brand the White House response to Lee’s election “a vicious
slander of South Korea’s hard-won democracy.” 

RESISTING DICTATORSHIP, DEFENDING SOVEREIGNTY 

On June 3, Koreans elected Lee Jae-myung
[[link removed]],
the candidate of the Democratic Party of Korea, as the nation’s 21st
president, delivering not just a victory at the ballot box but a
powerful mandate for democracy, justice, and popular sovereignty. This
was not just an election. It was a revolution, albeit a peaceful and
democratic one.

The extraordinary snap presidential election triggered by the
impeachment of President Yoon Suk-yeol
[[link removed]] turned
out voters in record numbers. Of 44.39 million eligible voters, 35.24
million cast their ballots, representing a staggering 79.4% turnout,
the highest in nearly three decades. Lee Jae-myung of the Democratic
Party won 49.42% of the vote—the highest
[[link removed]] share
in any presidential race since South Korea’s democratization in
1987—and became the first Korean president to receive over 17
million votes. His far-right opponent, Kim Moon-soo of the People
Power Party, trailed with 41.15%. But the numbers tell only part of
the story. This election was a national reckoning—a referendum on
Yoon’s unconstitutional seizure
[[link removed]] of
power, the people’s unyielding determination to reclaim their
democracy, and above all, their sovereignty. 

While former president Yoon and his collaborators continued to sow
instability and chaos, the Korean people responded with extraordinary
discipline, reaffirming their refusal to return to Korea’s
authoritarian past. Despite a deeply entrenched conservative
base—about 30% of the electorate that reliably supports right-wing
candidates regardless of who runs—and Washington’s consistent
favoritism toward conservative leadership, voters ultimately propelled
opposition liberal candidate Lee Jae-myung to victory. 

A MOVEMENT, NOT JUST A MANDATE

What happened in the wake of Yoon’s illegal martial law declaration
was one of the most disciplined, rational, and nonviolent democratic
uprisings in modern history.  Millions of Koreans—students,
workers, women, and the elderly—resisted not with weapons but with
law, protest, and truth. Several dynamics shaped the unprecedented
electoral outcome that followed:

BROAD-BASED SUPPORT: Despite a last-minute conservative surge,
centrist and progressive voters overwhelmingly backed Lee. Exit polls
showed nearly 60% of voters supported candidates who endorsed Yoon’s
impeachment. The result was a clear mandate to dismantle the remnants
of Yoon’s autocratic and insurrection regime.

REGIONAL BREAKTHROUGHS: Lee achieved historic gains in traditionally
conservative strongholds such as the southern province of Busan and
the central Chungcheong region, outperforming all previous liberal
candidates. His success signals a shift among moderate voters and
points to a potential realignment of the electorate and a critical
juncture in South Korea’s electoral history.

PROGRESSIVE UNITY: For the first time in years, Korea’s
democratic-progressive parties stood united. With the exception of the
Labor Party, progressive parties, mindful of the fateful 2022
election, when Yoon was elected by a razor-thin margin of 0.7%, chose
not to field their own presidential candidates to minimize
vote-splitting among minor progressive candidates. Civil society and
grassroots organizations mobilized, and millions rallied behind Lee
Jae-myung as the only viable path to end the insurrection and restore
constitutional order.

Amid mass mobilization and a strong democratic resolve, and after
three years of incompetent, chaotic, and failed leadership under Yoon,
Koreans made a clear choice based on competence and leadership rather
than ideology.

KOREANS VOTED FOR RESPONSIBILITY IN LEADERSHIP

Lee Jae-myung
[[link removed]] trajectory
is one of both personal triumph and political transformation. Born
into poverty, the former child laborer rose to become a human rights
attorney, a reformist mayor, and the governor of Gyeonggi Province.
After narrowly losing the 2022 presidential race, he faced
unprecedented repression under Yoon’s “republic of prosecutors”,
with 250 elite prosecutors assigned to investigate him and over 350
raids conducted on his offices. Undeterred, Lee continued to challenge
Yoon’s autocratic rule by unifying his party under progressive
leadership and systematically confronting the regime’s abuses.

His leadership reached its defining moment on the night of December 3,
during the martial law crisis. In a contemporaneous YouTube live
broadcast from the National Assembly, Lee directly appealed to the
public, urging them to gather there to demand the withdrawal of
martial law. His calm, resolute handling of this critical moment in
the face of personal danger exemplified the highest standard of public
service and leadership, deeply resonating with voters. 

In a pre-election poll, 35.3% of voters cited “experience and
competence” as their top priority. Having campaigned as a policy
expert, a public servant, and a survivor of Korea’s harshest
inequalities, Lee embodied these qualities. “If anybody is up to the
job, he is… He is a pragmatist with a track record of getting things
done. He would hit the ground running,” observed Kyung-wha Kang
[[link removed]], President
and CEO of Asia Society.

Lee wasted no time after winning the election. With no transition
committee in place, he assumed official responsibilities immediately
on June 4, stepping into a presidential office stripped bare by the
outgoing regime, and lacking computers, documents, and even pens. Lee
compared the presidential office to a tomb
[[link removed]], an image that
speaks volumes about the Yoon administration’s legacy of corruption,
incompetence, and institutional neglect. Lee inherits a nation still
reeling from institutional sabotage. The judiciary remains opaque.
Political prosecutors continue to stall investigations. Collaborators
from Yoon’s failed coup still hold office. And the national security
apparatus remains tethered to the US-Japan military order relentlessly
pushed by Biden and eagerly embraced by Yoon.

Rebuilding Korea’s democracy will take more than a new president. It
demands sustained civic engagement and deep structural reform against
a persistent insurrectionist bloc that is actively regrouping. Lee
cannot govern alone, and the people who brought him to power must
remain vigilant. This urgent call for accountability extends beyond
Korea’s borders. 

A RECKONING FOR WASHINGTON AND WESTERN MEDIA

Lee’s victory also forces hard questions on Washington and the role
of Western media in shaping the narrative around Korea’s
democracy.  For three years under the Biden administration, the US
propped up Yoon as a loyal ally while escalating tensions with North
Korea, expanding trilateral military drills
[[link removed]] with
Japan, and subordinating Korean sovereignty to US goals.

Yoon’s attempt to impose martial law was not a rogue act, but rather
the culmination of a broader authoritarian drift, fueled by powerful
far-right forces and quietly enabled by the Biden administration,
which offered Yoon uncritical support, despite mounting warnings about
his systematic erosion of civil liberties. To claim that the Biden
administration, with its extensive influence over Korea’s domestic
and foreign affairs, was unaware of Yoon’s martial law plot is not
only implausible, but disingenuous. Yoon’s failed coup revealed not
only his own desperation but also the Biden 
[[link removed]]administration’s
deeper anxiety over safeguarding its top strategic objective:
advancing a new Cold War posture against China through the
Korea-US-Japan alliance. 

Throughout the crisis, Biden officials focused on the preservation of
this alliance, a cornerstone of US military dominance in the region,
rather than supporting Korea’s democracy and sovereignty.  

This posture was made clear in a U.S. Congressional Research
Service report
[[link removed]] released shortly after
Yoon’s impeachment in December 2024. The report criticized Lee for
warning against the risks of abandoning Korea’s balanced foreign
policy between the U.S. and China. At the same time, the report
praised Yoon’s foreign policy record during the martial law crisis,
framing Lee’s position as opposition to Yoon’s staunchly
pro-American, pro-Japanese, and anti-North Korea and China stance.

This alignment-focused approach was further underscored by Secretary
of State Antony Blinken’s visit to Seoul in early January, even as
impeachment proceedings against Yoon were still unfolding. Rather than
expressing solidarity with Korea’s democratic movement, Blinken’s
presence reinforced Washington’s fixation on military alliance over
democratic legitimacy.  

After Yoon’s impeachment and Kishida’s resignation, the Biden
administration’s priority remained fixed on reinforcing the “Axis
of War
[[link removed]]”
represented by the US-Japan-South Korea alliance rather than
safeguarding Korea’s democracy. Just ten days after Blinken’s
visit, as millions of Koreans were braving freezing temperatures to
resist Yoon’s insurrection, the US staged joint aerial military
exercises in Korean airspace, turning the skies above the democratic
uprising into a theater for US-led military force.

Then, on January 16, the Biden administration formally objected to an
opposition-led investigation into the national security risks posed by
Yoon’s aggressive promotion of the US-Japan-South Korea alliance. In
Korea, this alliance has been widely perceived as escalating regional
tensions and compromising national sovereignty. Biden officials
questioned why diplomatic “achievements” like the trilateral pact
were cited in the articles of impeachment against Yoon and pressured
Korean lawmakers to forgo investigating Yoon for heightening the
potential of future conflict with North Korea and China via his
involvement of Korea in Washington’s trilateral military pact. In
short, the Biden administration succeeded in curtailing the process of
holding Yoon accountable for his insurrection in order to serve its
own ends.

These events revealed the sobering truth that the gravest threat to
Korean democracy may no longer come from within the country, but from
a Washington security establishment increasingly disconnected from the
political realities on the ground, and driven by a foreign policy
shaped by a flawed and misguided vision. Seen in this light, Yoon’s
failed coup represents not only the collapse of an authoritarian
leader’s ambitions but also the failure of the Biden
administration’s Korea policy, which was heavily influenced by
pro-Japanese security advisors and anti-China hawks like Kurt
Campbell
[[link removed]].

Yoon Suk-yeol’s collapse highlights a simple truth: any US policy in
Korea that ignores Korean public opinion is bound to fail. The Trump
administration has the opportunity to reset US-South Korea relations 
by acknowledging Korean interests and realities. A unique asset that
President Trump brings is his past outreach to North Korea, which,
while ultimately unsuccessful, was widely supported by Koreans and
broke with Washington orthodoxy. More than 80% of Koreans supported
Trump’s engagement with North Korea during his first term, viewing
it as a bold step toward peace on the Korean Peninsula. A 2025 poll by
the American Friends Service Committee shows continuing strong public
support in the US as well, with 70%
[[link removed]] favoring
renewed talks and 75% backing cooperation to repatriate Korean War
remains. These figures suggest strong backing for diplomacy over
escalation, and for a policy that aligns with both American and Korean
hopes for peace
[[link removed]].

THE “REVOLUTION OF LIGHT”

Western media outlets have continued to echo hollow narratives about
Korea’s democratic uprising and the ensuing election, with major
news organizations such as _The New York Times_, BBC, and CNN failing
to highlight the real threat: tanks deployed by an authoritarian
faction backed by the United States. Even after Lee Jae-myung’s
decisive victory, much of the coverage framed him not as the
embodiment of Korea’s democratic will, but as a potential risk to
the US alliance. This framing is both condescending and irresponsible.
It reduces Korea’s democratic choice to a footnote in the American
strategic calculus and erases the deeper meaning of a grassroots
movement led by ordinary citizens whose rallying cries were democracy
and sovereignty rather than US military priorities.

But the so-called  “Revolution of Light” that brought Lee
Jae-myung to the presidency transcends the dismissive portrayals
offered by foreign media. For 124 days, from December 3, 2024, to
April 4, 2025, millions of Korean people stood unwavering. More
than ten million
[[link removed]] marched to defend the
National Assembly, facing down soldiers and tanks. They resisted
authoritarianism and oppression, and above all, they voted. One
protester said it best: “Even when soldiers forced their way in, we
followed legal procedures, removed the leader, and elected a new one.
This is democracy.”

Lee’s election marks not just an end to authoritarianism, but also
the dawn of Korea’s democratic revolution
[[link removed]].
The future of Korea belongs to its people, and as Washington charts a
new path with Korea’s incoming president, it should be guided by the
words of John Adams, who centuries ago keenly observed that “_the
right of a nation to govern itself is the most sacred of all political
rights.”_ 

_Simone Chun is a researcher and activist focusing on inter-Korean
relations and U.S. foreign policy in the Korean Peninsula. She
currently serves on the Korea Policy Institute
[[link removed]] Board of Directors and the advisory
board for CODEPINK. She has over 20 years of teaching and research
experience in the United States and has been a central contributor to
the creation of a number of interdisciplinary Asian and Korean Studies
degree programs. She has served as an assistant professor at Suffolk
University, an associate-in-research at Harvard University’s Korea
Institute, and a lecturer at Northeastern University. Follow her on
Twitter at@simonechun [[link removed]]._

_CounterPunch is reader supported! Please help keep us alive
[[link removed]]._

_The CounterPunch website is offered at no charge to the general
public over the world wide web. New articles, from an independent
left-leaning perspective, are posted every weekday. A batch of several
articles, including the Poet’s Basement, and Roaming Charges by
Jeffrey St. Clair, are posted in the Weekend Edition. After the
initial posting, these articles are available in the archives which
can be searched by using any of the search boxes on the website.
 CounterPunch also publishes books, and published a newsletter and
magazine from 1993 to 2020.  The COUNTERPUNCH+ Subscriber area of
our website features subscriber content and access._

* South Korea
[[link removed]]
* Democratic Rights
[[link removed]]
* peace
[[link removed]]
* Korean War
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]