Editorial: Military Factions Under Regime Pressure Threaten Future Stability

Military Personnel Reshuffle: A Major Shift in Leadership

The recent reshuffling of military leadership has marked a significant change in the structure of the armed forces. Specifically, 20 out of 31 lieutenant general positions were replaced, with all 15 lieutenant generals in the Army being replaced. This move represents the most extensive personnel change within the last decade and is seen as part of a broader effort to address issues related to martial law.

The decision to replace these high-ranking officers was influenced by directives from the president. During a recent Cabinet meeting, President Lee Jae-myung instructed the defense minister to ensure that individuals involved in the implementation of martial law would not be considered for promotions. The president emphasized the need for careful selection, which directly led to this large-scale reshuffle.

Investigation into Officers During Martial Law Period

The Ministry of National Defense reportedly initiated an investigation into hundreds of officers above the rank of colonel who were stationed at key locations such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), Army Headquarters, and Ground Operations Command during the martial law period. This investigation aimed to identify those who may have been involved in or associated with the events surrounding the imposition of martial law.

Loyalty Tests and Political Pressure

A notable aspect of this reshuffle involved a procedure where candidates were asked, “Was the martial law an insurrection?” This question placed soldiers in a difficult position, as they are trained to follow orders without questioning their legality. The determination of whether the December 3 martial law constituted an insurrection is a legal matter that should be decided in court. However, soldiers, who are not judges or legal experts, were expected to answer this question, effectively turning it into a loyalty test.

Some officers reportedly refused to participate in the process, stating, “If this is the case, I won’t seek promotion.” This highlights the tension between following orders and maintaining personal integrity, especially when the stakes are high.

Broader Implications on Public Officials

The government’s actions extend beyond the military. It is also conducting a so-called “insurrection” participant screening operation targeting 750,000 public officials across 49 central administrative agencies. This initiative involves encouraging public officials to report on their colleagues, creating an environment of suspicion and fear.

This practice of unilaterally defining “correct thinking” and punishing those who do not conform is reminiscent of totalitarian regimes. It raises concerns about the erosion of democratic principles and the potential for abuse of power.

Recurring Patterns in Administrative Changes

Similar incidents have occurred repeatedly whenever a new administration takes power. Public officials often avoid promotions and refrain from active work as an administration nears its end. This is because being labeled as part of the previous regime can hinder career advancement. Even outstanding officials from the prior regime face stigma and exclusion.

Conversely, those promoted early in an administration and able to complete their tenure within the administration’s term tend to display excessive loyalty. They adjust their work based on the president’s term and their own promotion timeline. This dynamic raises questions about the effectiveness of governance in such an environment.

The Impact on Society

The practice of ranking soldiers and public officials and dividing them into factions is not decreasing but worsening daily. This factionalism ultimately places the burden on the people, who bear the consequences of these political maneuvers. The long-term effects on national unity, trust in institutions, and the overall stability of the country remain uncertain.

As the situation continues to evolve, it is crucial for society to remain vigilant and engaged, ensuring that the principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability are upheld.

Leave a Reply