The West holds up South Korea as a beacon of democracy and ­capitalist progress. But last week’s half-baked coup reveals a society in deep crisis.

Yoon Suk Yeol, the right wing ­president, launched the coup in a desperate attempt to break the political dead-lock in the country.

This crisis flows from South Korea’s position as a client state of United States imperialism. Its history is marked by dictatorship, martial law and coups—indeed, it has only been a “liberal democracy” since 1988.

But it’s also seen powerful working class movements that show an alternative to a corrupt ruling class and its US backers.

South Korea owes its entire ­existence to US imperialism at the end of the Second World War.

In 1945 the US proposed that ­occupying Japanese troops south of the 38th ­parallel—an arbitrary line on the map—should surrender to the US. Troops north of the line surrendered to Stalinist Russia.

The two superpowers cut Korea in half and ordinary people there had no say in it. The US and Russia set up client regimes in their halves of the peninsula, both ruled by brutal dictatorships.

When North Korea waged war against South Korea in 1950, US troops rescued the South from the abyss. After three years of war that devastated Korea, the two sides had fought each other to a standstill.

The border was virtually the same as at the beginning. The US backed South Korea as a ­bulwark against Russia, China and North Korea in Asia. It propped up the dictatorship of Syngman Rhee—and, when student protests brought down the regime in 1960, helped him flee the country.

South Korea’s rulers—and their US backers—bided their time and prepared to launch a coup. General Park Chung Hee seized power in 1961. Through a ­combination of US aid, close ties between the state and domestic capitalist class and ­repression of the labour ­movement, he built up a ­powerful economy.

Park’s economic model meant there was a close relationship between the state, banks and industry. As well as encouraging corruption, it stoked ­competition within the regime.

In 1979, amid slowing economic growth and demands for change, Park was assassinated by a close ally who headed the security services.

General Chun Doo-hwan seized power, declared martial law and went on to oversee a series of massacres against student demonstrators.

His regime collapsed in 1987 amid mass protests—including powerful strikes by workers. But the state didn’t fundamentally change and it remained a client of US imperialism. And since then, South Korea’s democratic politics has seemingly been embroiled in a “revenge cycle” between rival wings of the ruling class.

All former presidents—except one—have either been indicted for corruption, bribery and embezzlement or have had family members arrested for financial scandals related to the presidency. No sooner does a new president take over, they begin prosecuting their predecessor.

The conservative leader Lee ­Myung-bak, elected in 2008, encouraged a bribery investigation into his ­immediate predecessor, Roh ­Moo-hyun, who died by suicide in 2009 while being investigated. Then Lee was arrested in 2018 on charges of bribery, embezzlement and tax evasion. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

His immediate successor was Park Geun-hye, South Korea’s first female leader and daughter of General Park. She was impeached in 2017, before the completion of her five-year term, and convicted on charges of corruption and influence-peddling.

Prosecutors are currently ­investigating Moon Jae-in, president from 2017 to 2022, for bribery.

And they are also investigating Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the main opposition party, the liberal Democratic Party, for corruption. And now Yoon is facing the prospect of impeachment and possible jail time.

This is reflective of the role the ­prosecution office plays in South Korean politics. After the end of military rule, the prosecution service took over some of the pervasive authority of the state intelligence apparatus.

It has steadily become more bloated, emerging as an all­powerful fixer for the president, with each president weaponising powers to eliminate or humiliate their rivals.

Under the last government of Moon Jae-in, Yoon was the director of the prosecution service. Under Yoon’s watch, the service expanded its reach to prosecute more than 200 bureaucrats and politicians.

It led to Yoon himself being investigated at one point for arranging criminal complaints against specific politicians running in the 2020 parliamentary elections.

He won the presidency just three months after launching his bid. It is a feat made possible by the vast ­political connections and overarching influence of the prosecution office.

These practices, along with the spectacle of the opposition leader Lee’s ­corruption, have cumulatively led to the point that a bloated prosecution finally catapulted its own chief to presidency after thwarting intermittent attempts to curtail its power.

Kap Seol, a left wing author, said, “Yoon’s seizure of the presidency ­represented the culmination of a rolling coup, thirty-three years in the making, from one of South Korea’s last bastions of authoritarianism.”

The rise of China has worsened the economic problems and ­political ­polarisation that helped lead to Yoon’s decision.

South Korea — between the US and China

Over the last four decades, while staying deeply loyal to US imperialism, South Korea’s economy has rapidly developed and become more integrated with the Chinese economy.

“Many South Korean manufacturers export machinery and semiconductors to China. During the 2000s, the government was saying that it was partners with the US for security and partners with China for the economy,” Munseong, a socialist activist in South Korea, told Socialist Worker.

“Since the rivalry between the US and China has become more intense, the US has demanded that South Korea decouple from China. It’s created a lot of economic pain as South Korea relies on that export market.”

Chinese companies now mount a formidable challenge in areas such as semiconductors, consumer electronics and cars, areas that have been disproportionately responsible for South Korea’s industrial miracle.

“In the economic war between China and the US, especially in the technology race, South Korea has to depend on the US,” Munseong said.

“Because of these factors, Yoon has been pro-US and put forward a US, Japanese, South Korean military alliance. But now, as a response, North Korea has made a partnership with Russia and this has triggered a security crisis in South Korea.

“The security crisis and a worsening state of the economy has contributed to low popularity.

“The two main countries that South Korea exports to are in conflict, posing very severe contradictions.”

Strikes reveal a militant force — and an alternative to imperialism

There is a force that can pose an alternative to the imperialist powers and South Korea’s rulers.

The years before the Korean war saw workers strike, occupy their factories and set up grassroots democratic bodies. These were repressed by the US and Russia. But industrialisation created a powerful working class that played a decisive role at the end of military rule in the 1980s.

Repeatedly, over the last two decades, South Korean workers have faced repression only to organise and resist with massive militant mobilisations.

For example, it was almost constant mass mobilisation of millions of people on the streets that brought corrupt president Park down in 2017. And that movement began following strikes from rail workers.

Munseong spoke about the current route forward for the working class movement. He said, “Since October the anti-president movement has grown significantly. The main opposition party is the Democratic Party who have hegemony within the current movement and a majority in parliament.

“The party in the past has fought against dictatorships but has also had many neoliberal policies. Because of that, many workers and the poor and those who are militant distrust it.

South Korea has been a huge beneficiary of the old, globalisation-friendly world order. But with China’s rise and ever hardening US response, it is being forced to pick sides.

The divisions were seen in Yoon’s invoking of the spectre of North Korean influence, as he portrayed opposition figures as “pro-North, anti-state forces”. He was trying to mobilise Cold War language and take advantage of South Korea’s long-standing trauma about the Korean war.

This is the crucial political context in which polarisation and instability is occurring, and which Yoon’s half-baked coup is a product of.

“The mainstream of the anti-president movement is too moderate and opportunistic. We have to argue for the immediate resignation of the president and that should be realised through struggle. All people and workers should come together and the KCTU trade union federation should start a general strike.

“Not all strikes have to call for the big thing of presidential resignation, but even strikes with local demands can contribute significantly to the current movement. Because currently the situation is very critical. Now is not the time to be overly optimistic.”

He added, “On the one side, the conservative People’s Party will be very strong and won’t step back. On the other side, the resistance side, many people know that the movement should not stop here and the president is far from removed.”

“But the leaders of the movement are not as firm as the president’s side. The Democratic Party is a capitalist party and can’t call for strikes or for struggle from below. The KCTU leadership has called for a general strike but whether that will materialise is yet to be seen as individual trade union leaders are wavering.

“We are organising militant workers and because it is an issue of parliamentary democracy, the first response is the streets and the universities.”

As South Korea has recently seen large street movements for Palestine, anti-government protests and feminist demonstrations, Munseong argued, “We are trying to make the confidence of struggle on the streets and universities grow into the workplaces.”