The morning sun barely filtered through my office blinds as I reviewed notes from an extensive conversation with Professor Seungsook Moon, an expert on Korean politics at Vassar College. “Political scandal is woven into South Korea’s democratic fabric,” she had told me during our interview. “Understanding this pattern requires examining the country’s compressed modernization and authoritarian past.”
South Korea’s remarkable journey from war-torn nation to economic powerhouse carries alongside it a complex history of political upheaval. Having covered Asian political systems for nearly two decades, I’ve observed how South Korea’s democracy, while vibrant, continues to weather recurring storms of corruption and scandal.
Former President Park Geun-hye’s dramatic fall from power in 2016 represents perhaps the most internationally recognized South Korean political scandal. The daughter of former dictator Park Chung-hee, she became the country’s first female president only to face impeachment after revelations emerged about her close confidant Choi Soon-sil’s inappropriate influence over government affairs. The Constitutional Court unanimously upheld Park’s impeachment in March 2017, and she later received a 25-year prison sentence for corruption and abuse of power.
“The Park scandal revealed deep structural problems in how business and political power interact in South Korea,” notes Dr. Jiyoung Song from the Asia Institute at the University of Melbourne. The investigation exposed millions in bribes from conglomerates including Samsung, whose vice chairman Lee Jae-yong served prison time for his role in the scandal.
This wasn’t Korea’s first presidential disgrace. A pattern emerges when examining the country’s democratic era, which began in 1987. Almost every South Korean president since democratization has faced legal troubles either during or after their tenure.
Roh Tae-woo, who served from 1988 to 1993, was convicted of bribery alongside his predecessor Chun Doo-hwan. Roh received a 17-year sentence while Chun faced life imprisonment, though both later received presidential pardons. The administration of Kim Young-sam (1993-1998) collapsed under the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, while his son was imprisoned for influence peddling.
Even Nobel Peace Prize recipient Kim Dae-jung couldn’t escape controversy. His “Sunshine Policy” toward North Korea earned international praise, but his legacy was tarnished by revelations that his government secretly transferred $500 million to North Korea before his historic 2000 summit with Kim Jong-il.
Roh Moo-hyun’s story proved particularly tragic. Elected in 2003 as an anti-corruption reformer, he faced bribery allegations in 2009 after leaving office. Weeks into the investigation, he died by suicide, leaving a note expressing the pain the scandal had caused his family.
Lee Myung-bak, who served from 2008 to 2013, received a 17-year sentence in 2020 for embezzlement and bribery. His successor Park faced the impeachment detailed earlier. Most recently, former President Moon Jae-in saw several close associates implicated in influence-peddling scandals.
According to data from the Korean Institute for Criminology and Justice, over 40% of high-ranking political appointees between 1993 and 2020 faced some form of criminal investigation during or after their service. The average presidential approval rating typically starts around 70% but often plummets below 20% by term’s end.
Why does this pattern persist in a developed democracy? My investigation points to several structural factors.
First, South Korea’s compressed modernization created unusual economic power dynamics. “The chaebol system of family-controlled conglomerates developed symbiotically with government during the authoritarian era,” explains Dr. Hyung-A Kim from the Australian National University. “This relationship created endemic corruption that democratic institutions struggle to fully reform.”
The Korea Economic Research Institute estimates that the top five chaebols alone account for roughly 50% of the country’s stock market value. This concentration of economic power creates ongoing temptations for political influence.
Second, South Korea’s winner-take-all presidential system lacks robust institutional checks. Presidents wield significant power for their five-year terms but cannot seek reelection, creating what some scholars call a “lame duck syndrome” where outgoing administrations become vulnerable to investigation by their successors.
“Each new administration typically investigates its predecessor, creating a cycle of political retribution,” notes Professor Jae-jung Suh of International Christian University in Tokyo. This pattern has fueled public cynicism about whether investigations serve justice or political convenience.
Third, South Korea’s intensely competitive society creates pressure for success at any cost. The country’s rapid development from poverty to prosperity happened within living memory, fostering anxiety about maintaining status. This social psychology extends to politics, where the stakes for power feel existentially important.
Despite these challenges, there’s cause for optimism. South Korea’s civil society has shown remarkable resilience in confronting corruption. The peaceful “Candlelight Revolution” that preceded Park’s impeachment saw millions of citizens demonstrate without violence.
The country’s judiciary and press, while imperfect, have developed greater independence over time. Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index shows South Korea improving from a score of 43 in 2007 to 62 in 2022, though challenges remain.
Current President Yoon Suk Yeol faces his own controversies, including allegations involving his wife and criticism over his handling of economic issues. Whether his administration can break the scandal cycle remains uncertain.
As I finished reviewing recent polling data showing increasing youth disillusionment with Korean politics, a message arrived from a former National Assembly member who requested anonymity. “Our democracy is still young,” he wrote. “Each scandal, painful as it is, strengthens our institutions if we learn the right lessons.”
South Korea’s political scandal history reflects a democracy still reconciling with its authoritarian past and navigating complex relationships between wealth, power, and accountability. The country’s citizens continue demanding better governance, suggesting that while the path may be turbulent, Korea’s democratic journey moves forward.
For more context on Asian political systems, the East Asia Forum provides valuable regional analysis, while the Seoul-based Center for Strategic and International Studies offers in-depth coverage of Korean governance challenges.
