I don't think that yesterday has hurt South Korea's reputation. Lawmakers unanimously voting against martial law, national assembly staff blocking soldiers with fire extinguishers, people taking to the streets to protest while not giving a damn that this is illegal under martial law, the largest umbrella union organization calling a general strike - all this is very impressive.
They couldn't know whether the army would shoot protesters (as they did in 1980). They risked their lives to protect democracy. So when I see takes like "I thought South Korea was a stable democracy", I think: Which democracy is more trustworthy, one that seems stable from the outside or one where people will actually stand up for democracy?
@Mab_813 you are missing some elements. The country government is so corrupt that Pharmakom from Johnny Mnemonic would pass for philantropists. President's wife does shamanism with state money. Social life is miserable. Political elites are in their ivory tower with their bikkionaire friends and totally disconnected from reality.
Maybe stability is overrated? South Korean military dictatorships were not the only governments supported by the USA in the name of "stability".
@f4grx @Mab_813 is it conflict of parlament and president? If so, then even assuming parlament is of the same kind, it is better, than one person with same power.
I hope it will not go like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis
@Mab_813 People getting in the streets, at night, with near 0ºC temperatures and facing the troops. The National Assembly members getting into the building by any means necessary and their staff blocking the soldiers access to the parliamentary hall. It is absolutely admirable.