South Korea’s democracy, celebrated as one of Asia’s most vibrant and resilient, faced a critical test with the recent martial law controversy. The attempt to invoke such an extreme measure during a period of political unrest shocked citizens and drew widespread condemnation, highlighting persistent vulnerabilities in the country’s democratic fabric. At the heart of this incident lies a deeper issue: the ideological stagnation of South Korean conservatism, which has failed to adapt to the demands of a rapidly evolving society.
Unlike conservatism in Japan and the United States, which draws strength from nationalism, pragmatism, and adaptability, South Korean conservatism remains entangled in its historical roots. It is defined by opportunism, power-centric factionalism, and a deference to foreign powers, (or sadaejuui, 事大主義)), rather than a coherent ideological vision. This stagnation not only hampers its ability to contribute constructively to the nation’s democratic progress but also alienates a significant portion of the electorate, particularly younger generations.
The Historical Development of South Korean Conservatism
South Korean conservatism, as it exists today, is a product of its turbulent history—a history marked by colonization, division, and authoritarian rule. Its evolution has been deeply reactive, shaped more by external pressures and crises than by a coherent ideological foundation. Unlike the deliberate construction of conservative traditions in nations like Japan or the United States, South Korea’s conservatism has often been opportunistic, clinging to power by aligning itself with the prevailing forces of the time.
The liberation of Korea in 1945 should have marked a fresh start for the nation, but it instead laid bare a profound ideological vacuum. Decades of Japanese colonial rule had eroded indigenous political traditions, leaving the country without a robust conservative intellectual base. Into this void stepped elites who had collaborated with the colonial administration or aligned themselves with the United States, the new guarantor of South Korea’s security. This reliance on foreign powers established a troubling pattern of dependence, as South Korea’s nascent conservatism prioritized anti-communism and external alliances over cultivating a self-reliant national vision.
During the presidency of Syngman Rhee, this dependency transformed into a defining characteristic of South Korean conservatism. Rhee’s government leaned heavily on anti-communist rhetoric to consolidate power, framing all dissent as a threat to national security. His authoritarian rule set the tone for decades to come, as conservatism became synonymous with centralized power and suppression of political opposition. While Rhee’s administration claimed to champion stability and order, it failed to establish a forward-looking conservative ideology, relying instead on the Cold War’s divisive dynamics to justify its actions.
The military coup of 1961 brought Park Chung-hee to power, ushering in an era of developmental authoritarianism that would further entrench conservatism’s association with economic growth and political repression. Under Park, conservatism found a new purpose: the transformation of South Korea from a war-torn, agrarian economy into an industrial powerhouse. The “Miracle on the Han River” became the cornerstone of conservative legitimacy, as economic progress was prioritized above all else. However, this rapid modernization came at a steep cost. Political freedoms were curtailed, dissent was silenced, and the state apparatus was wielded to maintain control. Park’s vision of conservatism was one of discipline, order, and national survival—values that resonated with a country still reeling from the trauma of war but left little room for democratic principles.
When Park’s rule abruptly ended with his assassination in 1979, his successor, Chun Doo-hwan, doubled down on militaristic governance. The conservative establishment, now fully entrenched in the structures of power, viewed democracy not as a goal but as a threat. This mindset culminated in the brutal suppression of the Gwangju Uprising in 1980, an event that would forever stain the legacy of South Korean conservatism. The uprising underscored the widening chasm between the authoritarian conservative elite and a populace increasingly yearning for democratic reform.
The 1987 June Democratic Uprising marked a turning point. Faced with mass protests and international pressure, the conservative regime reluctantly conceded to demands for direct presidential elections, ushering in South Korea’s democratic transition. Yet, even as the country democratized, its conservative factions struggled to adapt. Their rhetoric remained tethered to Cold War paradigms, with anti-communism and developmentalism dominating their platform. This ideological inertia became glaringly apparent during the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, which exposed the vulnerabilities of the conservative economic model. Public resentment grew toward the collusion between conservative politicians and chaebols, further eroding trust in the conservative establishment.
As the 21st century unfolded, South Korean conservatism entered a period of fragmentation and crisis. The impeachment of Park Geun-hye in 2016, following revelations of corruption and abuse of power, symbolized the depths of its decline. Public outrage during the Candlelight Protests laid bare the disconnection between conservative leaders and the citizens they claimed to represent. Rather than reflecting on these failures, conservatives leaned into nostalgia for the past, lionizing figures like Park Chung-hee and clinging to an increasingly out-of-touch narrative of stability and order. Populist rhetoric and sensationalist media further distorted the movement, reducing it to a reactive and divisive force.
South Korean conservatism’s journey is a tale of missed opportunities. While it played a pivotal role in the nation’s economic transformation, it failed to establish itself as a meaningful partner in South Korea’s democratic progress. Its historical reliance on external powers, its fixation on authoritarian control, and its inability to evolve with the times have left it ideologically adrift. This history, marked by moments of triumph and profound failure, offers valuable lessons for its future and for South Korea’s broader democratic experiment.
Comparisons with Conservatism in Japan and the United States
The story of South Korean conservatism becomes even more distinct when viewed alongside its counterparts in Japan and the United States. While each nation’s conservative tradition has been shaped by unique historical and cultural factors, certain contrasts highlight the peculiar weaknesses and challenges faced by South Korean conservatism. Where Japan’s conservatism has demonstrated remarkable stability and pragmatism, and America’s conservatism has thrived on adaptability and grassroots energy, South Korean conservatism has struggled with opportunism, fragmentation, and a lack of ideological clarity.
In Japan, conservatism has been defined by continuity. After World War II, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) emerged as the dominant political force, effectively embodying conservative principles of stability, gradual reform, and economic growth. The LDP skillfully balanced modernization with the preservation of traditional values, fostering national pride and economic self-reliance. Unlike South Korea’s conservatism, which has been frequently reactive and power-centric, Japanese conservatism has relied on a pragmatic, forward-looking approach. Even in its alliances with the United States, Japan has carefully negotiated its sovereignty, ensuring that its national interests remained central.
American conservatism, on the other hand, draws its strength from its ability to adapt to changing times. Rooted in classical liberalism, the U.S. conservative movement emphasizes individual liberty, limited government, and American exceptionalism. Over the decades, it has evolved to address new challenges, from Reagan-era fiscal conservatism to the populist wave that culminated in the rise of Donald Trump. While American conservatism is often polarized, its grassroots energy and capacity for reinvention stand in stark contrast to South Korea’s more rigid and top-down approach. The robust involvement of citizens in shaping conservative narratives has ensured that, despite its flaws, American conservatism remains a dynamic force in U.S. politics.
By comparison, South Korean conservatism appears strikingly stagnant. Its historical reliance on anti-communism and developmentalism has left it ill-prepared to address the complexities of a rapidly modernizing and globally connected society. Unlike Japan’s emphasis on sovereignty or America’s focus on individualism, South Korea’s conservatism has often been characterized by deference to foreign powers—a legacy of its colonial history and the Cold War. This deference reflects a mindset that prioritizes alignment with dominant global actors, such as the United States, over fostering a cohesive national vision. While this approach may have been pragmatic during South Korea’s early years of state-building, it now undermines the development of a confident, independent conservative ideology.
Moreover, South Korean conservatism lacks the cohesive narrative seen in Japan and the grassroots mobilization evident in the United States. In Japan, the LDP has provided a consistent framework for conservative governance, enabling long-term policy planning and stability. In the U.S., grassroots movements like the Tea Party have invigorated conservative politics, ensuring that the movement evolves with the times. South Korea, however, suffers from deep factionalism, with conservative politicians often prioritizing personal or factional power over ideological consistency. This has resulted in a fragmented movement that struggles to present a unified vision to the electorate.
The absence of nationalism as a unifying force further weakens South Korean conservatism. While Japan’s conservatism has capitalized on cultural pride and the preservation of traditional values, and American conservatism has drawn strength from its narrative of exceptionalism, South Korean conservatism often clings to nostalgia for past authoritarian leaders. This reliance on the past alienates younger generations, who view such rhetoric as outdated and irrelevant in addressing contemporary challenges like climate change, economic inequality, and social diversity.
In sum, the comparisons reveal the fundamental gaps in South Korean conservatism. Where Japan and the United States have demonstrated adaptability, coherence, and a focus on national identity, South Korea’s conservatism remains trapped in a cycle of opportunism and historical dependence. These contrasts not only underscore the challenges facing South Korea’s conservative movement but also point to potential pathways for renewal—pathways rooted in the lessons of their counterparts abroad.
The Crisis of Conservatism in South Korea
South Korean conservatism stands at a crossroads, grappling with an existential crisis born out of decades of ideological stagnation, opportunistic politics, and an inability to resonate with a rapidly changing society. The martial law controversy, which raised alarms about the potential abuse of power to suppress dissent, is not just a reflection of authoritarian tendencies but also a symptom of deeper structural weaknesses within the conservative movement. These weaknesses—opportunism, factionalism, and a reliance on outdated narratives—have rendered South Korean conservatism increasingly disconnected from the public it seeks to represent.
At the heart of this crisis lies conservatism’s power-centric nature. Unlike ideological movements rooted in clearly articulated principles, South Korean conservatism has historically prioritized political survival above all else. This opportunistic approach can be traced back to its early formation during the post-liberation period, when conservative elites aligned themselves with dominant forces such as the United States to maintain influence. This pattern continued under authoritarian regimes, where conservatism became synonymous with state control and economic modernization. However, in the democratic era, this power-centric ethos has failed to evolve into a principled framework, leaving the movement fragmented and rudderless.
Factionalism further exacerbates this crisis. South Korea’s conservative landscape is characterized by deep internal divisions, with rival factions often vying for dominance rather than working toward a common goal. This lack of unity was starkly evident during the impeachment of Park Geun-hye, when the conservative establishment fractured under the weight of scandal and public outrage. Instead of seizing the opportunity to reform and rebuild, conservative leaders turned to blame-shifting and sensationalism, further eroding public trust. The result is a movement that appears reactive rather than proactive, defined more by its opposition to progressives than by a clear vision for the nation.
Adding to these challenges is the aging support base of South Korean conservatism. The movement’s reliance on older voters, many of whom are nostalgic for the perceived stability of authoritarian rule, has created a generational chasm. Younger South Koreans, raised in a democratic and globalized society, find little appeal in conservatism’s backward-looking rhetoric. This disconnect is compounded by the movement’s failure to address contemporary issues such as climate change, gender equality, and the digital economy—issues that resonate deeply with younger generations.
The rise of populist rhetoric, particularly through platforms like YouTube, further underscores the crisis of South Korean conservatism. While digital media has enabled conservatives to reach new audiences, it has also incentivized sensationalism over substance. Conservative YouTube channels often rely on inflammatory content that deepens polarization rather than fostering meaningful dialogue. This shift to populist messaging reflects a movement struggling to maintain relevance in a rapidly evolving media landscape, but it comes at the cost of ideological depth and credibility.
At its core, the crisis of South Korean conservatism is a crisis of identity. Without a cohesive vision or values that resonate across generations, the movement risks becoming obsolete. Its reliance on power structures, nostalgia, and reactionary rhetoric has left it ill-equipped to navigate the complexities of modern society. If South Korean conservatism is to survive, it must confront these weaknesses head-on, shedding its opportunistic tendencies and embracing a more principled, forward-looking approach.
What South Korea’s Conservatism Can Learn from Its Peers
The crises of South Korean conservatism are not unique; many nations have faced the challenge of reconciling traditional values with the demands of a modern, democratic society. However, the trajectories of conservatism in Japan and the United States offer valuable lessons in adaptability, pragmatism, and cohesion—qualities that South Korean conservatism has struggled to develop. By examining how these two countries have navigated their own ideological evolution, we can glean insights into the pathways available for South Korea’s conservative renewal.
Japan: Pragmatism and Stability
Japanese conservatism, as embodied by the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), has thrived by balancing stability with incremental reform. Since its founding in 1955, the LDP has dominated Japanese politics, not by clinging to rigid ideological positions but by skillfully adapting to changing societal needs. The LDP has maintained a conservative framework centered on national pride, economic growth, and social stability while evolving to incorporate modern issues such as gender equity, environmental policies, and aging demographics.
One of the defining features of Japanese conservatism is its emphasis on sovereignty. While Japan’s alliance with the United States remains central to its foreign policy, the LDP has consistently worked to assert Japan’s autonomy, particularly in economic and security matters. This pragmatism contrasts sharply with South Korea’s deference to foreign powers, where alliances often overshadow national self-reliance. Japan’s ability to negotiate its position within a U.S.-led global order while maintaining a distinct national identity offers a blueprint for South Korea to redefine its conservative movement with a focus on sovereignty and self-reliance.
Furthermore, Japanese conservatism has cultivated a sense of continuity and coherence. The LDP’s long tenure in power has allowed it to institutionalize conservative governance, providing a stable platform for policy implementation. This contrasts with the factionalism and fragmentation that plague South Korean conservatism. The LDP’s emphasis on collective leadership and internal discipline ensures that party divisions rarely undermine its broader agenda—a lesson South Korean conservatives would do well to heed.
The United States: Adaptability and Grassroots Energy
American conservatism, while deeply polarized in recent years, has demonstrated remarkable adaptability throughout its history. Rooted in classical liberal principles of individual liberty and limited government, U.S. conservatism has repeatedly reinvented itself to address new challenges. From the free-market policies of Ronald Reagan to the populist wave led by Donald Trump, the movement has remained relevant by responding to the evolving priorities of its constituents.
One of the key strengths of American conservatism is its grassroots foundation. Movements like the Tea Party have reinvigorated the Republican Party, pushing it to address fiscal concerns and government overreach in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. This bottom-up energy has allowed conservatism in the U.S. to reflect the concerns of everyday citizens, even as it grapples with internal divisions. In contrast, South Korean conservatism remains largely top-down, dominated by elites and detached from the broader populace. To rejuvenate its movement, South Korea must embrace grassroots mobilization, empowering ordinary citizens to shape conservative values and policies.
Another defining feature of American conservatism is its focus on national identity. From the “American Dream” to the narrative of American exceptionalism, U.S. conservatism has successfully tied its principles to a broader cultural ethos. This emphasis on identity provides a unifying framework that transcends policy disagreements. South Korea, by comparison, lacks a cohesive conservative narrative. Instead of nostalgia for past authoritarian leaders, South Korean conservatism could benefit from framing its vision around cultural pride, innovation, and democratic resilience.
South Korea’s Unique Path
While Japan and the United States provide valuable lessons, South Korea’s unique historical and geopolitical context demands a tailored approach. Unlike Japan, which has enjoyed relative geopolitical stability, or the United States, which operates as a global hegemon, South Korea faces the constant threat of North Korea and the complexities of its position within East Asia. Any effort to rebuild South Korean conservatism must address these realities while also drawing on the strengths of its counterparts abroad.
South Korea can learn from Japan’s emphasis on sovereignty and stability, leveraging its economic and technological strengths to assert itself as a regional leader. Similarly, it can draw inspiration from the grassroots energy of American conservatism, engaging younger generations and diverse communities in shaping its future. Most importantly, South Korea must articulate a conservative vision that is distinctly its own, rooted in the values of democracy, resilience, and national pride.
The trajectory of South Korean conservatism is a tale of both triumph and turmoil. From its origins in the post-liberation period, shaped by the imperatives of anti-communism and national survival, to its central role in South Korea’s economic transformation, conservatism has been a key force in the country’s history. Yet, its failure to adapt to the demands of a democratic society has left it ideologically adrift and increasingly disconnected from the public.
The recent martial law controversy underscores the urgent need for introspection and reform. This episode revealed not only a willingness among some conservative factions to resort to undemocratic measures but also a broader crisis of identity within the movement. Where conservatism in Japan and the United States has demonstrated resilience through pragmatism, adaptability, and grassroots energy, South Korea’s conservatism remains mired in opportunism, factionalism, and nostalgia for authoritarian rule.
But South Korean conservatism is not beyond saving. The lessons from its counterparts abroad point to pathways for renewal. Japan’s careful balance of stability and reform, rooted in cultural pride and sovereignty, offers a model for building a cohesive and forward-looking ideology. Similarly, the grassroots dynamism of American conservatism highlights the importance of empowering ordinary citizens to take ownership of political movements. By learning from these examples, South Korean conservatism can transform itself into a movement that reflects the needs and aspirations of a diverse and modern society.
For this transformation to occur, South Korean conservatism must break free from its historical constraints. It must redefine itself around democratic values, articulate a vision of national pride that transcends ideological divides, and address the pressing challenges of the 21st century, from economic inequality to climate change. Most importantly, it must engage younger generations, not through sensationalist rhetoric but through substantive policies that offer hope and opportunity.
A renewed conservative movement would not only benefit its supporters but also enrich South Korea’s democracy. Healthy democracies thrive on the competition of ideas, and a revitalized conservatism could serve as a vital counterbalance to progressive forces, fostering dialogue and innovation. The task is daunting, but the stakes are high. For South Korea to continue its remarkable democratic journey, its conservatism must evolve, shedding its past limitations and embracing a future that is both principled and inclusive.
As South Korea stands at the crossroads of history, the question is not whether conservatism can survive but whether it can thrive. The answer lies in its ability to listen, adapt, and lead—not as a relic of the past but as a partner in the nation’s progress.